Murray Falls - Wet Tropics of Queensland · Terms of Reference Visitor Use Survey The following...

Joan M Bentrupperbäumer

Murray FallsSite Level Data Report

2001/2002

WTWHA Site Level Visitor Survey Dry & Wet Season 2001/02: Murray Falls 2

Bentrupperbäumer, J. Rainforest CRC & JCU

© Bentrupperbäumer, J. M, 2002, James Cook University and the RainforestCooperative Research Centre.

This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, news, reporting,criticism or review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes providedacknowledgement of the source is included. Major extracts of the entire document may not be reproduced byany process without written permission of the Director of the CRC for Tropical Rainforest Ecology andManagement.

Published by the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management.

Dr Joan M BentrupperbäumerRainforest CRC & JCU

PO Box 6811 • CAIRNS • 4870Phone 40 42 1357 • Fax 40 42 1390

Email: [email protected]

November 2002

For this research:� James Cook University Ethics Approval No. H1272� Queensland National Parks & Wildlife Service Permit No. FNQ06� Wet Tropics Management Authority Contract No. 654



Terms of Reference

Visitor Use Survey

The following Terms of Reference have been extracted directly from the WTMA/Rainforest CRCContract document.

BackgroundMeasurement of visitation to the WTWHA extends far beyond the estimation of visitor numbers. Thecollection of basic visitor numbers provides baseline information only. Further visitor specificinformation is required to provide managers with an understanding of patterns of visitor use,behaviour, perceptions, attitudes, expectations and satisfaction. A comprehensive understanding ofthese visitor aspects is critical to effective visitor management including minimisation of biophysicalimpacts and maximising benefits to the land manager, visitor and community.

WTMA commissioned Manidis Roberts Consultants in 1993 to conduct an extensive visitor survey withthe aim of providing baseline information for comparison with future visitor use surveys. The ManidisRoberts 1993/1994 visitor survey was conducted over 56 sites and although not comprehensive providedan important first step in visitor monitoring within the WTWHA. The MR survey approach include 3 keyelements:� traffic counts� site observations� visitor interviews

A number of subsequent visitor use surveys have taken place throughout the WTWHA, and althoughthey have not taken place in as many sites as the Manidis Roberts 1993/1994 survey, they have been farmore comprehensive and complex in order to investigate the variety and complexity of issues identifiedby management agencies.

Aims:� To collect, compare and review site-based visitor information against previous survey exercises,

including aspects of the MR survey� To update WTMA's visitor survey system to achieve improved administrative efficiency and

capture of key site-based visitor information which will aid land managers and the tourismindustry in making informed management decisions

� To contribute to measuring psychosocial indicators for State of Wet Tropics reporting processes� To provide an integral input or tool for the ‘Visitor Monitoring System (VMS) for the Wet Tropics

World Heritage Area’, a project which is also being undertaken by Rainforest CRC during 2001 to2002.

(Ref: WTMA Contract # 654 , 2001)



About the Author

Dr Joan M Bentrupperbäumer is a Senior Research Fellow and Project Leader with the RainforestCRC and Lecturer at TESAG and the School of Psychology, James Cook University, Cairns. Herresearch interests include human-natural environment transactions using social, psychological andbiophysical perspectives. Her research approach incorporates an interdisciplinary perspective onreciprocal relationships indigenous and non indigenous people have with thenatural/built/social/cultural environment in the WTWHA and the implications of such relationships forenvironmental management, tourism and local communities in the region. A particular emphasis in theresearch is placed on the ‘real world’ application of results in terms of planning for, managing,monitoring and reporting on the State of the Wet Tropics, and developing practical mechanisms andstrategies to mitigate impacts on those features of the WTWHA inherent to its World Heritage status.

AcknowledgmentsThe success of this research project, which was undertaken across ten sites within the Wet Tropics WorldHeritage Area, has very much depended on the many people involved in various research related tasks. Inparticular I would like to acknowledge my colleague Dr Joseph Reser who has worked together with me over anumber of years now developing and refining the analytical framework, survey instruments, and methodologiesfor this multidisplinary research on impacts of visitation and use in protected areas. Together we have finalised areport which brings together the results from the ten site level reports, and discusses in detail the analyticalframework, methodologies and procedures which were used to undertake this research (Bentrupperbäumer &Reser, 2002a). I would also like to specially acknowledge my research assistant Sue-Ellen O’Farrell who hasmade a major contribution to this research by assisting me in every aspect of the administration of the project.

In addition I wish to acknowledge all of those listed below who were involved in various aspects of this research.

A. Data ProcessorsBronwyn Guy, Joshua Guy, Charmayne Paul, Sue-Ellen O’Farrell, Lucas Talbot, Sunny Pegararo and JennyButler.

B. Field Assistants across the regionKristie Ashden, Rosanna Brown, Shannon Bros, Megan Campbell, Margit Cianelli, Campbell Clarke, LaurelCooper, Cheryl Cornelius, Leyla Demis, Mathew Earle, Heidi Freiburger, Malcolm Frost, Michelle George,Paula Gilbard, Bronwyn Guy, Joshua Guy, Kristen Haaland, Alicia Hill, Steve Lawrence, Denise Lievore, LisaMartin, Rik Morgan, Sue-Ellen O’Farrell, Charmayne Paul, Sunny Pegoraro, Romina Rader, Quinn Ramsden,Hilde Slaatten, Mathew Sutherland, Lucas Talbot, Colin Tonks, Ben Trupperbäumer, Steve Turton, RogerWilkinson, Robyn Wilson, Cleo Wilson.

C. Field Assistants at Murray FallsBen Trupperbäumer (Field Supervisor), Paula Gilbard, Sunny Pegoraro.Rik Morgan (Traffic Counter)

D. Research ColleaguesDr. Robyn Wilson, Assoc. Prof. Steve Turton and Dr Miriam Goosem

E. WTMA PersonnelMax Chappell, Campbell Clarke, Dr Steve Goosem and Ellen Weber.

F. DNR/QPWS PersonnelMike Murphy and Bill Dorrie

Funding:This research (Site-Level Visitor Survey across ten WTWHA sites) together with the WTWHA Community Survey(Contract # 654) has been funded by the Wet Tropics Management Authority (20%), the Rainforest CRC (26%),and James Cook University (In-kind infrastructure and services - 54%).



Table of ContentsTerms of Reference ……………………………………………………………………………...……3

About the Author & Acknowledgements …………………………………………..…………...……4

This Research …….……………………………………………………………………………...……6

This Report …………….……………………………………………………………………..…… …7

Site Location & Description ……………………….…………………..…………………………. …9

Site Management ………………………………………….……………………………………… …11

Executive Summary ……………………………………………………….………………………….12

References …………….………………………………………………………………89

Section One: Psychological & Behavioural

Visitor Survey 2001 & 2002 17

• Descriptive Analyses of Survey …………….... 18

• Additional Comments on Survey……………... 44

• Comments to Field Assistants………………... 49

• Behavioural Observations…………………….. 52

Section Two: Infrastructure/Built Environment

Infrastructure Inventory and Profile 2002

• Site Activity Node Map…… .…………………. 56

• Site Infrastructure Inventory…………… ……...57

• Site Information and Signage…………………....60

Section Three: Social Setting

Vehicle and Visitor Monitoring 2002 67

• Vehicle and Visitor Records…………………… .68

• Traffic Counter Data………………………. …...74

Section Four: Management Considerations

• Presentation……………….. ………………….…84

• Opportunities………………………. …………...86

• Specific Problems & Issues..………. …………..87



This Research

Natural resource managers are increasingly aware that the real issue and challenge for them is peoplemanagement. In a protected area context this requires an informed understanding of the nature andquality of the interaction between people and environment. The multilayered and multidisciplinarysite-level approach applied in this research is one that provides such an understanding and has evolvedfrom, built upon and refined earlier research endeavours (Bentrupperbäumer & Reser 2000). Theconceptual and methodological framework which assesses and documents this interactive process andwhich was applied in this research is outlined in Figure 1. This framework differentiates between fourprimary research layers or domains, one for each of the four key site-level ‘environments’ within thesetting: social and psychological (psychosocial), natural and built (physical) (Reser &Bentrupperbäumer, 2001). Research projects representative of each of these ‘environments’ wereconducted simultaneously at the site, which provided a comprehensive and realistic context formeasuring, monitoring and reporting on the impacts of visitation and use at recreational settings in theWet Tropics World Heritage Area.

From a management perspective, this site-level research approach provides specific site and situationlevel data which can directly inform site level decision-making and practice, as well as monitoring andreporting (see Site Level Reports #1 to #10, Bentrupperbäumer 2002 a to j). In addition, this site-levelsampling allows for an accurate and meaningful aggregate picture of what is happening at abioregional or World Heritage Area level, as long as data collection sites and data collection arerepresentative (see Report #11, Bentrupperbäumer & Reser 2002a, WTWHA Site-Based BioregionalPerspective 2002). Given that reporting on the State of the Wet Tropics is a statutory requirement, thestandardised conceptual and methodological framework used across the ten WTWHA sites and thesubsequent information provided by research such as this is critical for continued monitoring andreporting change over time.

Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of the research layers, domains and report outputs for this research .

PsychosocialEnvironment

PhysicalEnvironment

Aggregate of Site Level DataSample = Ten WTWHA Sites

Report #11:Bentrupperbäumer &Reser (2002a),WTWHA Site BasedBioregional Perspective2002

SITE LEVELRESEARCH

BIOREGIONALLEVELRESEARCH

Site Level Data Reports #1 to#10 Bentrupperbäumer 2002 a to j

BIOPHYSICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE

SOCIAL/CULTURAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Spatial Unit of Analysis – Site Level



This Report

This report is one of ten site-level reports which presents a comprehensive set of data analyses for thestrategic sample of research tasks undertaken across three of the four research domains outlined inFigure 1. The research covered in this report was undertaken at the Queensland Parks & WildlifeService and Wet Tropics World Heritage site, Murray Falls, during 2001 and 2002. Since theprimary objective of this report is to provide key site-level data of relevance to all levels ofmanagement, from on-ground to policy, planning, monitoring and reporting, details of methodologyare not included here. This information is available in a separate but accompanying report (Report#11, Bentrupperbäumer & Reser, 2002a). When comparative data from previous studies are availablethey are included in each relevant section. When such data is from studies other than the authors,methodology and specific measures are often different. The layout of this report, which complimentsthe research domains presented in Figure 1, is outlined in Figure 2 and the discussion that follows.

SITE LEVEL REPORT

Figure 2: Diagrammatic representation of the report layout and report sections.

BIOPHYSICAL -NaturalBiophysical Ass

Ecological Impacts at Day-use & camp areas, walkingtracks - soil, vegetation, &

water quality.

See Wilson 2002 VisitorMonitoring SystemReport

INFRASTRUCTURE - BuiltSite Inventory

Inventory: type, #, &condition of facilities;

Signage; amenities

SOCIAL /CULTURALVehicle/Visitor,Visitor Use Patterns

# & types of visitors,length of stay, density

estimates, vehicle class.

PSYCHOLOGICAL/BEHAVIOUR

Visitor Survey,Behavioural Obs

Nature & Quality ofExperience, Behaviour:

Assessment & appraisal ofnatural, built, social environs

SECTION ONE

SECTION THREE

SECTION TWO

SECTION 4: ManagementConsiderations



The layout of this report is in four sections. The first three sections present data which reflect thestrategic sampling across three research domains, while the fourth section addresses key managementconsiderations. The data in this report is presented in some considerable detail the purpose of which isto allow for the identification in future monitoring of changes in the system, however subtle. It alsoprovides management agencies with the detail required for State of Environment reporting andplanning, policy and on-ground management decision making.

Data Sections

Section 1: Psychological and BehaviouralIn the first section, general descriptive analyses of the two stages of data collection undertaken atthis site in September, 2001 and April, 2002, are presented. Data collected includes:a) visitor survey provides information on visitor profile, reasons for visiting, appraisal

of the natural, built, social environment, and signage, visitor activity, prior informationsources used, experience and satisfaction. Comparable survey items from Manidis Roberts(1993/1994) are also included.

b) behavioural observations, andc) general comments by visitors, field assistants and field supervisors.

Section 2: Infrastructure/Built EnvironmentThe second section presents an inventory of site facilities and infrastructure, including allsignage, which was undertaken by the author during the same data collection periods. Aninventory from previous research (Bentrupperbäumer & Reser 2000) is included for comparisonas is signage information from SitePlan (1993).

Section 3: Social Setting/Visitor Use PatternsThe third section presents information on the social setting of the site including visitor usepatterns. While the research undertaken in this section does not encompass the full meaning ofsocial, the information nevertheless provides an overview of visitor use patterns includingnumber and type of visitors accessing the site, length of stay at the site, pattern of use over time,vehicle type, etc. This information was obtained and is presented in two ways.a) The first is observer-based information which outlines vehicle and visitor data obtained over

4 x 8 hour observation periods during September 2001 and April 2002.b) The second is instrument-based information obtained from the traffic counter which provides

monthly, weekly, daily records of vehicle numbers, and visitor numbers calculated fromvisitor counts in vehicles and Questionnaire item # 8 in the visitor survey. The traffic counterwas installed for a continuous period of 12 months from mid September 2001. Traffic counterdata from Manidis Roberts (1993/1994), the WTMA Traffic Counter Program (1993-1997),and Bentrupperbäumer & Reser (2000) are included for comparison.

Integrative Section

Section 4: Management ConsiderationsThe fourth section of this report addresses management considerations that have emerged throughthe integration of data across the above three research domains. These considerations cover topicssuch as: presentation, protection, opportunities, problems and issues, threatening processes, layoutand design, infrastructure and facilities.



Site Location & Description

Murray Falls is situated in the Murray Upper region, approximately 38km southwest of Tully.Murray Falls occurs in the southern end of the Australia’s Wet Tropics World Heritage Area(WTWHA), which extends from Cooktown southwards to Paluma, encompassing an area of almost900 000 hectares (Figure 3).

Natural EnvironmentThere are two distinct native vegetation types on the site; they are lowland tropical rainforest andsclerophyll forest. Soils on the site were formed from the underlying granite parent material. The siteis located adjacent to the Murray River, which is the primary natural attraction at the site.

Cultural EnvironmentMurray Falls is a culturally significant site for the local rainforest aboriginal people of the Jumbuncommunity, the Girramay and Jirrbal. Interpretive signage located along the rainforest walking trackto the top of Murray Falls details some of their traditional tools and implements, as well as a selectionof their stories and myths. While a complete photographic record of these signs are included in Section2, Page 58 of this report, care has been taken not to present photographs of those sites that may beculturally significant and hence sensitive for community members such as Split Rock. Over the courseof this research project a meeting was held with the Chairperson of the Jumbun Community, MarciaJerry, during which topics including: the research, the importance of the site to the community, theAboriginal Interpretive signage, tourism, water quality, and community involvement in the project,were discussed. Informal discussions have also been held with a number of Elders in the community.

Built EnvironmentThe Murray Falls site caters for both day and overnight usage. The lower section of the site has beendesigned as a day use site, and provides visitors with the following facilities: car park area, access toswimming areas, rubbish bins, BBQs and tables and seating, and firewood. The upper section of thesite allows for overnight usage by visitors, with the following facilities provided: car park area, aboardwalk and walking track, toilets, a shower, rubbish bins, BBQs and BBQ/fire pits, sheltered tableand seating, and firewood (Figure 4).

OpportunitiesRecreational The main activity-based recreational opportunities available at this site areswimming, picnicking, camping, walking (see Section 1 for details). There are two walking trackspresent, a boardwalk to the bottom of Murray Falls, which is classified as a Pathway 1 (Wet TropicsWalking Strategy, 2001), and a trail through the forest to the top of Murray Falls, which is classifiedas a Graded Track (Wet Tropics Walking Strategy, 2001), The current status of the tracks is outlinedin detail in Section 2. Visitor comments relevant to the track and infrastructure are presented inSection 1. Other recreational opportunities available include: photography and bird/wildlifewatching.

Experiential In addition to the activity-based recreational opportunities outlined above,Murray Falls provides important experiential opportunity such as nature appreciation and experienceincluding observing scenery and possible wildlife encounters, socialising with family and friends, restand respite.

VisitationCompared to other sites in the Wet Tropics, Murray Falls experiences relatively low levels ofvisitation with 31,500 visitors per year (Mossman Gorge >400,000 visitors per year).



Site Maps

Figure 3: Site locationwithin the Wet TropicsWorld Heritage Area.(Source: WTMA , 2000)

Figure 4: Murray Falls site map. (Source: SitePlan Landscape Architects, 1993)

N



Site Management

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR Forestry) was initially responsible for the on-groundmanagement and upkeep of the Murray Falls site. However, this responsibility has since beentransferred to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service/Environmental Protection Agency(QPWS/EPA). During the course of this research project the on-the-ground management personnelwere always notified prior to undertaking field work at the site. On a number of occasions thisenabled the field teams to meet with rangers who provided us with critical information about visitorinteractions, visitor behaviour, infrastructure development and problems, etc.

Wet Tropics Management Authority

The Primary Goal for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area is to implement Australia’s internationalduty to “protect, conserve, present, rehabilitate and transmit to future generations the Wet TropicsWorld Heritage Area, within the meaning of the World Heritage Convention.”

Site Specific Management IntentMurray Falls site is classified as a Zone D site by the WTMA’s zoning scheme. This zoning system isbased on a “distance from disturbance” model. The WTMA management intent for this zone type isdescribed below:

“To accommodate developed visitor facilities to enable visitors to appreciate and enjoy the Area. Toensure that the impact of visitor infrastructure is managed to minimize the effect on the integrity of theArea” (Wet Tropics Management Authority, 1997 p.33).

In addition, the Wet Tropics Management Authority’s (WTMA) Visitor Opportunity Class systemdescribes Murray Falls site as a Visitor Facility Node (Class 4). The criteria for this category of site,as defined by the WTMA (1997 p.94), are detailed below:

• An area where a visitor may expect opportunities for presentation, intensive social interaction, andwhere management presence may be obvious;

• Accessible by vehicle along presentation roads;• Having developed visitor facilities such as formal car parks, toilets, picnic facilities and camping

areas;• Providing access to a range of recreation opportunities;• Having the potential for further development of visitor facilities.



Executive Summary

Survey Analyses

� Murray Falls is an important local use site, particularly for those community residents from thesouthern region of the WTWHA. Many are repeat visitors.

� It is a site most frequently used by young people travelling in a private car.� Most people get to know of Murray Falls by word of mouth. Very few visitors to Murray Falls use

information centres.� The primary reasons people visit Murray Falls are to see the natural features and to just rest and

relax.� Visitors are very impressed with the natural features of Murray Falls and the condition and

management of these features.� They are also very impressed with the condition and maintenance of the facilities, and find them

both appealing and adequate.� Most visitors stay for two or more hours and undertake the short walk.� The vast majority of visitors do not know who manages Murray Falls.� Crowding is not a concern for visitors at Murray Falls.� Nevertheless, visitors clearly link threats to the well being of the environment at Murray Falls

with on-site visitor behaviour and overuse.� Clean air and water and scenic beauty are considered to be the most important benefits of the

natural environment at Murray Falls.

Comments

• The majority of comments reflected visitors’ positive feelings about the site. The positivecomments mainly focused on the beauty of the site, the relaxation felt from the site, as well asvalue for money, and on the good facilities and the maintenance of the site.

• Visitors also reported that they liked being supplied with firewood but needed smaller sizes.• Visitors commented that they would not like to see any changes or development to the site.

Behavioural Observations

• Domestic Animals: Despite signage stating that animals are prohibited, there were a number ofsightings of domestic dogs at the site.

• Deliberate damage to plants: Adults and children were observed stripping back bark on manytrees for kindling needed to make their own fire.

• Undesignated area use: Groups of people were swimming in undesignated (prohibited) areas atthe site.

Section One

Visitor Survey 2001 & 2002

Key Findings



Day Use, Camp Area, Boardwalk and Walking Track

• Murray Falls contains four distinct activity nodes – Day Use Area, Camping Area, Boardwalk,and Walking Track.

• Within each of these nodes, well developed infrastructure has been established.

• On the whole this infrastructure was in very good condition, with no evidence of vandalism orgraffiti.

• The site was also very well maintained with little evidence of litter.

• Weed infestation along edges of the Day Use, Camping Areas and Access Road was high insome locations.

• Compared with the previous site inventory (1999), there has been a slight increase ininfrastructure in both the day use and camping areas, otherwise the condition of infrastructureand extent of weed infestation remain the same.

Site Information and Signage

• Signs at Murray Falls were grouped into DNR’s five broad sign categories: interpretive, visitororientation, visitor advice, regulatory, and corporate identity.

• A total of 45 sign structures containing 56 sets of information were present at Murray Falls.

• In addition, another 15 sign structures were located along the main and access roads.

• Signs were located in each of the activity nodes plus along the main road and access road.

• The majority of the signs were for the purpose of visitor orientation.

• The interpretive signage present focused on Aboriginal cultural information.

• No foreign language signs were present.

Section Two:

Infrastructure Inventory and Profile

Key Findings



Vehicle and Visitor Records

• Most common vehicle type accessing Murray Falls was the car (48%), followed by 4WD (27%).

• The highest number of people at the site at one time was 98 (1430 hours 6th April 2002).

• Most of the visits to Murray Falls occurred in the afternoon, between 1300 and 1700 hours – thebusiest time.

• On average, people stayed at Murray Falls for 156 minutes (one & half hours).

• One quarter of the visits was two hours or longer.

Traffic Counter Data

• A total of 11,696 vehicles and 31,462 people visited Murray Falls between September 2001 and2002.

• On average, 946 vehicles and 2,545 people visit this site each month, range 557 to 1,292vehicles.

• January received the highest visitation rates, February the lowest.

• On average, 225 vehicles and 605 people visit Murray Falls each week, range 114 to 497vehicles.

• Daily vehicle numbers range from 7 to 105.

• Average weekday vehicle number was28 per day.

• Average weekend vehicle numbers was 41 per day.

Section Three:

Vehicle and Visitor Monitoring

Key Findings



Presentation

• The presentation of Murray Falls as a World Heritage Area site is problematic as very few visitorsare aware of its World Heritage Area status.

• Cultural attributes of the site are well presented in terms of interpretive signage but require activeindigenous participation in management of the site and engagement with the visitors.

• Natural attributes are well presented in terms of appeal, condition and management and indemonstrating the interconnectedness with cultural attributes in the above interpretive signage.

• Management identity of the site is not well presented but responsibilities are in terms of visitorappraisal of the condition and management of the natural and built environment.

• Given the reliance on prior knowledge about the site and word of mouth, presentation of relevantand critical WHA and management information needs to occur at the site.

• Site layout and design, infrastructure and facilities are legible, functional, sensible, well managedand well used.

Opportunities

• Murray Falls is providing for and facilitating activity-based recreational opportunities in areasonable way.

• Experienced-based opportunities are very important for visitors and are also well accommodatedfor at this site.

• Increased local indigenous culture-based activities and experiences may be one way of furtherenhancing recreation, experience and educational opportunities at Murray Falls.

Specific Problems and Issues

• Principal behaviour management problems relate to visitors engaging in risky activities andregulation violations which may require different risk and rule/regulation communicationstrategies.

• Use and user conflict, inappropriate behaviour and crowding and overuse are not currentlysubstantial problems at Murray Falls despite visitors expressed concerns over such human-basedthreats to the well being of the environment.

Section Four

Management Considerations

Key Findings

Section OneVisitor Survey 2001 & 2002

• Descriptive Analyses of Survey

• Additional Comments on Survey

• Comments to Field Assistants

• Behavioural Observations

SECTION

ONE

WTWHA Site Level Visitor Survey /Dry & Wet Season 2001/02: Murray Falls 18

Visitor Survey of the Wet Tropics Regionin North Queensland

Dry (Stage 1) and Wet (Stage 2) Season 2001/02

GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE DATA ANALYSES

Survey Location: Murray Falls

Stage 1 Stage 2

Survey Dates 22nd, 23rd, 26th September2001

4th, 6th & 7th

April 2000

Survey Times 0900 to 1700 each day 0830 to 1700 each day

Weather62.1% Sunny32.2% Overcast3.4% Raining1.1% Hot1.1% Warm0.0% Cool

21.7% Sunny57.6% Overcast19.6% Raining 0.0% Hot 1.1% Warm 0.0% Cool

This visitor survey was undertaken over two periods, September 2001 and April 2002. For clarity of presentation thedata analysis/results corresponding to these data collection periods are represented in two colours, grey and green,and for the combined, dark red:

Stage 1: September 2001

Stage 2: April 2002

In addition, where comparative data is available from Manidis Roberts 1993 and 1994 data collection periods this isincluded in the relevant section and is represented in yellow.

Comparative Data (Manidis Roberts 1993/1994)

� Primary data analysis for this section of the report has been undertaken by Bronwyn Guy, JamesCook University.


Questionnaire Profile

Because Murray Falls is a relatively low use site (31,500 visitors per year, Section 3) it was possibleduring the survey distribution period to approach every visitor to this site. The results are thereforerepresentative of those using this site at this time.

a) Questionnaire Type Distributed & Returned

The majority of questionnaires which made up this data set were completed on site. Just 5% were take-homes/mailed back.

Stage 1: 2001 Stage 2: 2002 Combinedn Percentage n Percentage N Percentage

On-Site 79 90.8% 91 98.9% 170 95%Take-Home 8 9.2% 1 1.1% 9 5%Total 87 100% 92 100% 179 100%

b) Questionnaire Status of Returns

Of the 186 questionnaires returned 3.8% had to be rejected because they were either over 50%incomplete, respondents were too young, or they were posted back well after data entry and analysis hadbeen completed.

Stage 1: 2001 Stage 2: 2002 Combinedn Percentage n n N Percentage

Analysed: Completed 87 100% 92 93% 179 96.2%Rejected: Incomplete,under age, returned toolate etc.

0 0 7 7% 7 3.8%

Total 87 100% 99 100% 186 100%

c) Non-Response Information

Overall, the nonresponse rate was generally low. The main reason for why people who were approachedwould not participate in the survey was that they had no time. Field assistants found visitors on the wholeto be very cooporative, interested in the research, and willing to participate.

Stage 1: 2001 Stage 2: 2002 Combined

Reasons

n

Percentagetotal # peopleapproached

(99)

n


(123)

N


(222)Take-homes not returned 8 6.5% 8 3.6%

Filled in other/same survey 1 1% 1 0.8% 2 1%Partner filled in survey 1 1% 1 0.8% 2 1%Language Difficulties 3 3% 3 1.4%

No Time 10 8.1% 10 4.5%Not Interested 2 2% 2 1.6% 4 1.8%

Left before returning survey 5 5% 5 2.2%Dog ate survey 2 1.6% 2 1%

Non-Response 12 12% 24 19.5% 36 16.2%


a) Background Information Key Findings

Stage 1: September 2001 Visitor Profile

During this first data collection stage,

� The majority of visitors (respondents) to Murray Falls were Australian (as opposed to internationalvisitors). Of the Australian visitors, most were national visitors, i.e., they lived outside the WetTropics Bioregion;

� Nonindigenous Australians were the major ethnic group;

� The highest level of education for the majority of visitors was Secondary;

� While the average age of visitors was 38 years, the majority were in the 20 – 29 age class;

� Almost equal numbers of males and females participated in this survey.

Stage 2: April 2002 Visitor Profile

Only a slight variation in the visitor profile was evident in this second data collection stage.

� While the majority of visitors to Murray Falls continued to be Australian, the number of internationalvisitors had increased. Of the Australian visitors, the majority lived within the Wet Tropics Bioregioni.e., were local visitors;

� Nonindigenous Australians were still the major ethnic group;

� The highest level of education achieved for the majority of visitors again was Secondary;

� Average age of visitors declined slightly to 34 years, but the majority remained in the 20 – 29 ageclass;

� Again almost equal numbers of males and females participated in this survey.

Combined Data & General Comments

For the combined data set, the visitor profile was as follows:� The majority of visitors to Murray Falls were Australian (69.8%), which is lower than the 1993

results (81.8%, n = 33), with international visitors at 30.2%. There were significantly moreAustralians at the site than international visitors during both data collection periods [Chi-Square (df =1) = 5.57]. Of the international visitors, the majority came from Germany (24%) followed by the UK(22.2%);

� Of the Australian visitors, the majority were locals (68.8%), i.e., living within the Wet TropicsBioregion. Of these, 47.9% came from Townsville & district and 27.4% from Cairns & district;

� Just over half the visitors (52.5%) identified themselves as Nonindigenous Australians;

1. This visitor profile suggests that Murray Falls is an important local use site, particularly for those local community residents of the southern region of the WTWHA. 2. It is also a site that is used most frequently by young people, i.e., those in the 20-29 age class. 3. Of the international visitors it is most popular with Germans and English/UK citizens.


a) Background Information QUESTIONS & RESULTS

1. Where do you live?STAGE 1: (September 2001) STAGE 2: (April 2002)

N* = 87Australia 78.2% n = 68

N* = 92Australia 62% n = 57

Locals n = 29 (48.3%) (n = 60 responses) Locals n = 44 (84.6%) (n = 52 responses) Cairns & District

EdmontonTully

n = 8n = 1n = 4

Cardwell Townsville & District

n = 3n = 13

Cairns & DistrictInnisfail

GordonvaleMareeba

n = 12n = 3n = 1n = 1

TullyCardwell

Ingham Townsville & District

n = 3n = 1n = 1n = 22

Non-Locals n = 31 (51.7%) Non-Locals (national) n = 8 (17.4%)Overseas 21.8% n = 19 Overseas 38.0% n = 35

AustriaCanada

Czech

n = 4n = 3n = 1

GermanyDenmark

Netherlands

n = 5n = 1n = 1

Channel IsEngland

n = 1n = 2

CzechGermany

Holland

n = 1n = 8n = 2

IrelandIsraelSpain

Sweden

n = 2n = 1n = 2n = 4

SwitzerlandUK

USA

n = 2n = 10n = 3

Comparative Data 1993: Australian = 81.8% (Local = 69.7%); Overseas = 18.2% n = 33

2. How long have you lived there?

Period of Residence: N = 85

X = 24.11years ± 20.48SD (range 0-75)≤ 10 years = 30.6% > 10 years = 69.4%

Period of Residence: N = 83

X = 27.08 years ± SD 16.81 (range 1-67)≤ 10 years = 12.0%% > 10 years = 88%%

3. How would you describe your ethnic background?N = 87

NonindigenousAustralian

Indigenous AustralianCanadian

GermanFrench

EnglishIrish

58.1%10.5%1.2%

10.5%1.2%4.7%1.2%

Other

AustrianChannel Is

CzechDanishDutch

English/IrishNew Zealander

QuebecSerbianTurkish

12.8%n4111111211

N = 92Nonindigenous

AustralianIndigenous Australian

AmericanSwedishGerman

SwissEnglish

IrishScottish

Japanese

47.8%0.0%3.3%4.3%8.7%2.2%

19.6%4.4%2.2%1.1%

Other

CzechDutch

English / GermanEnglish / Irish/ Scottish

Irish/ScottishNZ

IsraeliSpanish

VietnameseWelsh

13%n1211111211

4. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed so far?N = 86Primary (1-8 years of education)Secondary (9-12 years of education)Tertiary A (Technical or further educ institution)Tertiary B (University)

%3.5%

38.4%30.2%27.9%

N = 90Primary (1-8 years of education)Secondary (9-12 years of education)Tertiary A (Tech or further educ institution)Tertiary B (University)

%3.3%

35.6%28.9%32.2%

5. AgeN = 84

X = 38.46 years ± SD 15.69 (range 15-75)Age Categories: < 20 years = 4.8% 40-49years = 15.7% 20-29years = 31.3% 50-59 years = 4.8% 30-39years = 26.5% > 60 years = 16.9%

N = 89

X = 34.26 years ± SD 13.26 (range 12-67)Age Categories:

< 20 years = 10.1% 40-49years = 16.8%20-29years = 34.8% 50-59 years = 8.9%30-39years = 21.3% > 60 years = 6.7%

Comparative Data 1993: 16-25 = 30.3%; 26-45 = 63.6%; 45-65 = 6.1% n = 33

6. Gender

N = 70 Male 49.4% Female 50.6% N = 91 Male 49.5% Female 50.5%

Comparative Data 1993: Male = 66.7%; Female = 33.3% n = 33


b) Transport & Travel Group Key Findings

Stage 1: September 2001 Travel Profile


� No visitors to Murray Falls were with an organised tour;

� On average there were 2.7 people in each vehicle;

� The major group profile of people visiting the site was two adults who were not accompanied bychildren;

� The majority of visitors travelled in privately owned vehicles;

� The two most important sources of prior information about Murray Falls were “word of mouth”followed closely by “have been here before”. The least important was “tourist information centresoutside NQ”.

Stage 2: April 2002 Travel Profile

Only slight differences were evident in this second data collection stage.

� A few visitors to Murray Falls were with an organised tour,

� There was a slight increase in the average number of people per vehicle to 3.4;

� The major group profile of people was again two adults;

� Almost all visitors travelled in privately owned vehicles;

� The two most important sources of prior information about Murray Falls were “word of mouth”followed closely by “have been here before”. The least important was “from the web”.


For the combined data set, the visitor profile is as follows:

� The majority of visitors (96.1%) to Murray Falls were independent travellers, which is slightlyhigher than 1993 results (90.9%, n = 33);

� On average there were 3.1 people in each vehicle, which is slightly higher than 1993 results (2.8, n =33);

� Almost all visitors (89.1%) travelled in privately owned vehicles;

� “Word of mouth” (38.0%) was the most important sources of prior information about Murray Falls.The least important was “tourist information centre outside NQ”, used by only two of therespondents.

1. Despite this data collection occurring over two school holiday periods, few family groups used Murray Falls. The major group profile of visitors was two adults.2. It is clear that most people get to know of this site by world of mouth.3. It is also clear that very few people use NQ information centres for information about this site.4. Murray Falls is a site that attracts repeat visits. At least one third of visitors have been before.


b) Transport & Travel Group QUESTIONS & RESULTS

7. Are you with an organised tour?

N = 87 Yes 0.0% No 100% N = 92 Yes 7.6% No 92.4%

8. If you travelled in a private or hired vehicle, how many people including yourself are in yourvehicle?

N = 87

People per Vehicle X = 2.69 ± SD 1.16 (range 1-6)

Adults per vehicle X = 2.22 ( n = 218)

Children per vehicle X = 0.57 (n = 46)

Private vehicle 87.8% Hired Vehicle 12.2%

N = 84

People per Vehicle X = 3.44 ± SD 1.83 (range 1-12)

Adults per vehicle X = 2.61 (n=214)

Children per vehicle X = 0.83 (n = 61)

Private vehicle 90.4% Hired Vehicle 9.6%

Comparative Data 1993: People per vehicle = 2.8 n = 33 Private vehicle = 72.7%; Hired vehicle = 12.1%; Commercial = 9.1%; Other = 6.1%

9. How did you obtain prior information about this site?

N = 87 Have been here before

Road signWord of mouth

Map which said it was a tourist siteTourist information centre in Nth Qld

Tourist information centreTourist leaflet

Travel guide or bookFrom the web

Trip was included in a package tour

OtherCame with friend

Swam here as childrenGrew up in region/local

Camping Qld QPWSNeeded place to sleep

n291133131103930

621111

%33.3%12.6%37.9%14.9%12.6%0.0%3.4%

10.3%3.4%0%

6.9%2.3%1.1%1.1%1.1%1.1%

N = 92 Have been here before

Road signWord of mouth

Map which said it was a tourist siteTourist information centre in Nth Qld

Tourist information centreTourist leaflet

Travel guide or bookFrom the web

Trip included in a package tour

OtherCame with daughter/friend

Accommodation HouseGrew up in region/local

Turned off highway to investigate

n252435162271510

73211

%27.2%26.1%38.0%17.4%2.2%2.2%7.6%16.3%1.1%0.0%

7.6%3.3%2.2%1.1%1.1%

Specify:

Travel guide or book : RACQ, Lonely Planet, Camping in QLD

Specify:Tourist inform centre: Ingham

Tourist leaflet: Kookaburra campsite leaflet, Scottys, The Green Way,Wet Tropics newspaper

Travel guide or book : Explore Australia, Lonely Planet, RACQ NP,Walks in NQld


c) Reasons for Visiting Key Findings



� In general, the most important reasons given for why people visit Murray Falls were experiential,followed by activity-based reasons. Educational reasons were least important;

� To see the natural features and scenery was the most important reason given;

� This was followed by three other experiential reason - rest and relaxation, be close to/experiencenature, and, closely linked to these two, experience tranquillity;

� Activity-based reasons were moderately important. Of these, opportunities for short walks, rated thehighest;

� Educational reasons were, on average, only slightly important. Learning about Aboriginal culturewas the least important.

Stage 2: April 2002

During this second data collection stage, only slight differences in responses were evident.

� The most important reasons given for why people visit Murray Falls were again experiential,followed by activity-based reasons. Educational reasons were least important.

� To see the natural features and scenery was the most important reason given, with 68.1% of visitorsrating this as very important;

� This was followed by three other experiential reason - rest and relaxation, experience tranquillityand be close to/experience nature;

� Activity-based reasons were moderately important. Of these, opportunities for short walks, rated thehighest;

� Educational reasons were, on average, only slightly important. Learning about Aboriginal culturewas the least important with just over half the visitors considering this as not important.


� The four most important reasons given for visiting the site were rated very important by between50.9% and 66.7% of visitors (see natural features & scenery - 66.7%; rest & relax – 61.3%;experience tranquillity – 53.5%; be close to nature – 50.9%); Visitors rated these experientialreasons significantly higher than activity and educational reasons [t(174) = 12.954; p = 0.00];

� The least important reason given was rated not important by 44% of visitors - learn about aboriginalculture. Visitors rated the two educational reasons significantly lower than experiential [t(169) = -22.498; p = 0.00], and activity reasons [t(169) = -9.739; p = 0.00].

1. The primary reasons for people visiting Murray Falls is to see the natural features of the site and to just rest and relax.2. Clearly activity-based reasons are secondary for most people.3. Learning about the natural and cultural features of the site do not appear to be why people visit this site.


c) Reasons for Visiting QUESTIONS & RESULTS

10. We would like to know how important the following reasons were for you visiting this sitetoday.

1 = Not important 2 = Slightly important 3 = Moderately important4 = Important 5 = Quite important 6 = Very important

Not Very Important Important

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 X *83 22.9% 14.5% 27.7% 18.1% 7.2% 9.6% 3.01a) Learn about native animals and plants

(Educational) 87 24.1% 21.8% 20.7% 14.9% 8.0% 10.3% 2.92

81 35.8% 25.9% 14.8% 12.3% 3.7% 7.4% 2.44b) Learn about Aboriginal culture

(Educational) 87 51.7% 20.7% 3.4% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 2.24

83 3.6% 2.4% 6.0% 8.4% 14.5% 65.1% 5.23c) See natural features and scenery

(Experiential)91 1.1% 0.0% 6.6% 5.5& 18.7% 68.1% 5.45

82 6.1% 4.9% 6.1% 7.3% 19.5% 56.1% 4.98d) Be close to/experience nature

(Experiential) 89 3.4% 2.2% 11.2% 13.5% 23.6% 46.1% 4.90

81 34.6% 2.5% 2.5% 12.3% 17.3% 30.9% 3.68e) Socialise with family/friends

(Experiential) 88 10.2% 5.7% 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% 47.7% 4.63

84 3.6% 6.0% 3.6% 9.5% 17.9% 59.5% 5.11f) Rest and relax

(Experiential) 89 1.1% 2.2% 3.4% 13.5% 16.9% 62.9% 5.31

82 7.3% 3.7% 4.9% 9.8% 22.0% 52.4% 4.93g) Experience tranquility

(Experiential) 88 1.1% 2.3% 8.0% 19.3% 14.8% 54.5% 5.08

84 9.5% 8.3% 14.3% 10.7% 19.0% 38.1% 4.36h) Experience the Wet Tropics

(Experiential) 88 6.8% 10.2% 11.4% 15.9% 20.5% 35.2% 4.39

83 13.3% 12.0% 16.9% 15.7% 19.3% 22.9% 3.84i) Outdoor exercise

(Activity) 88 12.5% 6.8% 18.2% 23.9% 17.0% 21.6% 3.91

84 13.1% 7.1% 11.9% 19.0% 19.0% 29.8% 4.13j) Opportunities for short walks

(Activity) 91 7.7% 3.3% 16.5% 22.0% 25.3% 25.3% 4.30

81 22.2% 16.0% 23.5% 12.3% 8.6% 17.3% 3.21k) Opportunities for long walks

(Activity) 88 21.6% 12.5% 18.2% 14.8% 14.8% 18.2% 3.43

86 1.2% 1.2% 2.3% 1.2% 2.3% 10.5%NA =81.4%

l) Other

85 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 20.0%NA =75.3%

15

Activity:Photography/film

SwimHave lunch

n141

Experiential:Do something differentEnjoy falls from water

Get away from townNirvana

Rest between cns tsv

n11111

Reflect on howplace was once

See fallsOther:

Easily accessibleLow cost accom

11

12

Specify other reasons:

Reasons provided have been placed intothree major categories. Those that arerelated to activity, experience, education.The fourth category is “other”.

20

Activity:Camp in nature

Lunch/picnicPhotosSwim

Jump & run amok

n12111

Experiential:Get away from tourists

Get out of hostileSound of waterfall

Avoid mobile phonesValue for money

See waterfall

n121112

Other:Cheap stopBreak long

journeydetour

n3

11

X = The mean of the categories are presented despite this being ordinal data and the precautions necessary in interpreting this data.


d) Natural Environment Key Findings

Stage 1: September 2001 Visitor Appraisal


� Overall, visitor appraisal of the positive aspects of the natural environment at Murray Falls was high;

� In particular, the majority of visitors found the natural environment to be interesting and appealing;

� In terms of the condition of the natural environment, over half strongly agreed that it appeared to begood;

� Over 85% of visitors somewhat to strongly agreed that the natural environment was well managed;

� Visitors were only slightly concerned about the impacts of human activity on the naturalenvironment at Murray Falls. The majority of visitors did not consider the site to be disturbed orimpacted;

� Very few visitors reported specific expectations for other natural features at the site.

Stage 2: April 2002 Visitor Appraisal

During this second data collection stage, only slight variations in some responses were evident.

� Again, visitor appraisal of the positive aspects of the natural environment was high;

� The majority of visitors (61.5%) strongly agreed that Murray Falls was appealing;

� In terms of the condition of the natural environment, over half strongly agreed that it appeared to begood;

� Over 80% of visitors somewhat to strongly agreed that the natural environment was well managed;

� Visitors were again only slightly concerned about the impacts of human activity on the naturalenvironment, and, did not consider the site to be disturbed or impacted.


For the combined data set,

� Aspects of the natural environment that were most highly rated were the condition ( X = 5.34),

appeal of natural attractions and scenic beauty ( X = 5.33), and management of the natural

environment ( X = 5.28).

� Very few visitors (9.8%) appeared to have particular expectations of what they would find orencounter.

1. These results suggest that, overall, visitors are very impressed with the natural features of Murray Falls and the condition and management of these features.

2. Of the natural features that the small number of visitors reported expecting to find at Murray Falls but were unable to, most were fauna-related.


d) Natural Environment QUESTIONS & RESULTS

11. The following statements are about the natural features of this site. Please rate the extent towhich you agree or disagree with each statement by circling the number that best reflectsyour level of agreement /disagreement.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 3 = Mildly Disagree4 = Mildly Agree 5 = Somewhat Agree 6 = Strongly Agree

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 X *

85 1.2% 0.0% 3.5% 16.5% 30.6% 48.2% 5.2a) The natural environment at this site isinteresting.

91 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 23.1% 30.8% 45.1% 5.2

85 4.7% 2.4% 17.6% 20.0% 22.4% 32.9% 4.52b) I would like to spend more timeexploring this natural environment.

92 0.0% 6.5% 8.7% 30.4% 23.9% 30.4% 4.63

83 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 20.5% 31.3% 45.8% 5.17c) In terms of natural attractions and scenicbeauty this site is appealing.

91 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 9.9% 26.4% 61.5% 5.47

83 1.2% 1.2% 2.4% 12.0% 30.1% 53.0% 5.28d) The condition of the natural environmentat this site appears to be good.

91 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 9.9% 36.3% 52.7% 5.41

82 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 40.2% 45.1% 5.27e) The natural environment at this site iswell managed.

91 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 16.5% 35.2% 47.3% 5.29

83 18.1% 14.5% 16.9% 21.7% 13.3% 15.7% 3.45f) I am concerned about the impacts ofhuman activity on the naturalenvironment at this site. 91 20.9% 14.3% 18.7% 18.7% 9.9% 17.6% 3.35

83 47.0% 15.7% 15.7% 16.9% 1.2% 3.6% 2.20g) This site appears to be disturbed andimpacted.

91 37.4% 20.9% 15.4% 14.3% 6.6% 5.5% 2.48

12. At this site were there any natural features you were expecting to find which were notpresent?

N = 85 Yes 10.6% No 89.4% N = 89 Yes 9.0% No 91.0%

6

Natural/Biological:Animals/wildlife

BirdlifeCrocodiles

n111

Natural/PhysicalSwim at falls

n3

Built/Structural n

If yes, please specify:

Responses provided have been placed intothree major categories. Those related tonatural/biological features, natural/physicalfeatures, and the built/structural features ofthe environment. 7

Natural/Biological:Animals/wildlife

kangaroobearded dragon

n411

Natural/Physical n Built/StructuralInfo on wildlife &

ecosystems

n1

X = The mean of the categories are presented despite this being ordinal data and the precautions necessary in interpreting this data.


e) Time Spent and Activities Key Findings

Stage 1: September 2001 Activity Profile


� About one third of visitors to Murray Falls were overnight campers;

� 34.1% of visitors said they spent from two to four hours at the site;

� Besides observing scenery and relaxing, the activities most visitors engaged in were a short walk andswimming, the third and fourth most popular activities;

� 14% of visitors undertook a longer walk (> 1 hr);

� Of those visitors who would have liked to engage in other activities, the majority identified activitiesthat were prohibited, such as swimming at falls, climbing over falls, and walking the dog.

Stage 2: April 2002 Activity Profile

During this second data collection stage, the responses changed slightly.

� Just over one third of visitors to Murray Falls were overnight campers;

� 24.6% of visitors said they spent from two to four hours at the site;

� Besides observing scenery and relaxing, the activities most visitors engaged in were a short walk andswimming, the third and fourth most popular activities;

� Just 7.6% of visitors undertook a longer walk (> 1 hr);

� Of those visitors who would have liked to engage in other activities, the majority identified activitiesthat were prohibited, such climbing over and explore falls, and swimming at bottom of falls.


1. These results suggest that, overall, visitors do spend a reasonable amount of time at Murray Falls. It is a site that most people stay for a while.

2. While most of that time is spent observing scenery and just relaxing, many do take the short walk (boardwalk to falls). A lot fewer visitors take the longer walk.

3. The activity least engaged in is looking at interpretation material.

4. Of concern are those visitors (10.6%) who wished to engage in prohibited and risky activities such as climbing over and explore falls, and swimming at bottom of falls.


e) Time Spent and Activities QUESTIONS & RESULTS

13. How long have you spent at this site today?

N = 85

less than 1/2 hourAbout 1/2 hour

About 1 hourAbout 2 hours

%

1.2%11.8%17.6%18.8%

About 3 hoursAbout 4 hours

More than 4hoursOvernight

%

8.2%7.1%3.5%

31.8%

N = 92

less than 1/2 hourAbout 1/2 hour

About 1 hourAbout 2 hours

%

7.6%7.6%

17.4%10.9%

About 3 hoursAbout 4 hours

More than 4hoursOvernight

%

5.4%8.7%6.5%

35.9%

Comparative Data 1993: <1/2 hr = 6.1%, _-<1 hr = 9.1%, 1-<2hrs = 24.2%; 2-<4hrs = 51.5%, overnight = 9.1%. n = 33

14. What activities did you engage in at this site today?

N = 87Activities:

Observing scenery Bird watching

Observe other wildlife Photography/painting/drawing

Picnic/barbeque Using café/restaurant

Camping Walking – Short (1 hr or less)

Walking – Long (1-6 hours) Swimming

Guided tour Looking at interpretation material

Relaxing

OtherDrive

Completing this surveyEating lunchFire at night

Playing

%80.5%24.1%36.8%34.5%35.6%

0%34.5%67.8%13.8%40.2%

0%16.1%68.9%

10.3%12112

N = 92Activities:

Observing scenery Bird watching

Observe other wildlife Photography/painting/drawing

Picnic/barbeque Using café/restaurant

Camping Walking – Short (1 hr or less)

Walking – Long (1-6 hours) Swimming

Guided tour Looking at interpretation material

Relaxing

OtherCompleting this survey

DrinkingCampfire

%87%

16.3%18.5%38.0%37.0%3.3%40.2%58.7%7.6%47.8%

0%6.5%

72.8%

10.9%211

Comparative Data 1993: Swimming = 75.8%; Walking (long) = 24.2%; Walking(short) = 57.6%; Picnic/BBQ = 33.3%; Relaxing = 27.3%; Scenic viewing = 54.5%; n = 33

15. Were there particular things you wanted to do at this site which you were unable to do?

N = 87 Yes 20.7% No 79.3% N = 80 Yes 21.3% No 78.8%

N = 16Natural Environ

Enjoy waterfall closelySwim

Swim/falls

n

129

Rules/regulation Says noswimming but I did

anywayGo out to waterfall

Walk pet dogWalk on rocks at own

risk

n

1

111

PsychoSocialEnviron

Relax

n

1

If yes, please specify:

Responses provided have been placed into fivemajor categories. Those activities related tonatural, built, or psychosocial environment,and rules/regulations.

N = 17Natural Environ

Walk & observescenery

Paddle/swim in poolsat bottom of falls

SwimWalk (raining)

n

1

532

Built EnvironShower with door

Use payphone

Rules/regulationClimb & explore falls

n

12

1

PsychoSocialEnviron

Be aloneMore time

n

11


f) Information Key Findings

Stage 1: September 2001 Information/Signage Use


� Most visitors strongly agreed that maps were easy to locate and that they enabled them to find theirway round Murray Falls;

� Rules and regulations were easy to determine according to most visitors and the signage clearlyidentified what was acceptable activity;

� Most visitors also strongly agreed that safety information was easy to locate and was understandable;

� Visitor assessment of the natural / ecological information was generally lower than for the aboveinformation types;

� Visitor assessment of the indigenous cultural information was also generally lower than for theabove information types.

Stage 2: April 2002 Information/Signage Use

During this second data collection stage, visitor assessment of all information was lower.

� Most visitors continued to agree that maps were easy to locate and that they enabled them to findtheir way round Murray Falls;

� Rules and regulations were easy to determine according to most visitors and the signage clearlyidentified what was acceptable activity;

� Most visitors still agreed that safety information was easy to locate and was understandable;

� Visitor assessment of the natural / ecological information was considerably lower than for the aboveinformation types and compared to the Stage 1 data;

� Visitor assessment of the indigenous cultural information was low.


� While most visitors agreed that rules and regulations at Murray Falls were easy to determine, there isa concern about the 18 visitors (10.8%) who disagreed;

� It is also a concern that 25 visitors (15.2%) did not easily locate the safety information given thenumber of injuries and deaths that have occurred at this site;

� Despite this being a site with extensive indigenous cultural information, the majority of respondentsdisagreed that this information was of interest, clearly presented, or helped them understand thesignificance of the area for indigenous Australians. When tested for those who may not have actuallyseen this information but responded anyway, there remained no significant difference in responsesexcept for understanding significance of the area for indigenous Australians, which was ratedhigher;

� The natural/ecological information at Murray Falls was mostly incorporated with the indigenouscultural information.


f) Information QUESTIONS & RESULTS

N = 83 Yes 48.2% No 51.8%16. Did you refer to any of the informationavailable at this site today? N = 87 Yes 35.6% No 64.4%

17. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements aboutinformation that may be available at this site by circling one number.

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

All of the signs listed below were present atMurray Falls (see Section 2 for details).

n1 2 3 4 5 6 X

78 1.3% 1.3% 6.4% 10.3% 32.1% 48.7% 5.17a) The maps and directions at this site: i) were easy to locate

85 4.7% 3.5% 7.1% 16.5% 27.1% 41.2% 4.81

78 3.8% 1.3% 3.8% 16.7% 32.1% 42.3% 4.99ii) helped me to find my way round

83 9.6% 1.2% 4.8% 21.7% 26.5% 36.1% 4.63

81 2.5% 0.0% 3.7% 9.9% 27.2% 56.8% 5.30b) The rules and regulations at this site: i) were easy to determine

86 1.2% 5.8% 8.1% 7.0% 32.6% 45.3% 5.0

81 3.7% 0.0% 2.5% 13.6% 25.9% 54.3% 5.21 ii) enabled me to clearly identify acceptableactivities 84 3.6% 6.0% 8.3% 8.3% 29.8% 44.0% 4.87

81 3.7% 2.5% 3.7% 6.2% 23.5% 60.5% 5.25c) The safety information at this site: i) was easy to locate

84 4.8% 8.3% 7.1% 7.1% 27.4% 45.2% 4.80

80 3.8% 3.8% 1.3% 5.0% 28.8% 57.5% 5.24ii) was easy to understand

82 4.9% 8.5% 4.9% 7.3% 26.8% 47.6% 4.85

69 2.9% 2.9% 11.6% 20.3% 29.0% 33.3% 4.70d) The natural/ecological information at this site:

i) was interesting 72 15.3% 11.1% 9.7% 16.7% 20.8% 26.4% 3.96

71 4.2% 7.0% 8.5% 14.1% 26.8% 39.4% 4.70 ii) was clearly presented

70 14.3% 10.0% 10.0% 21.4% 22.9% 21.4% 3.93

70 8.6% 5.7% 1`2.9% 20.0% 22.9% 30.0% 4.33iii) helped me better understand theecological processes of this area 71 15.5% 15.5% 7.0% 25.4% 16.9% 19.7% 3.72

66 13.6% 9.1% 15.2% 22.7% 13.6% 25.8% 3.91f) The indigenous cultural information at this site:

i) was interesting 64 37.5% 12.5% 7.8% 18.8% 14.1% 9.4% 2.88

67 13.4% 11.9% 17.9% 16.4% 13.4% 26.9% 3.85 ii) was clearly presented

64 37.5% 9.4% 7.8% 17.2% 17.2% 10.9% 3.0

66 16.7% 9.1% 19.7% 18.2% 13.6% 22.7% 3.71 ii) helped me to understand thesignificance of this area for indigenous

Australians 64 35.9% 10.9% 12.5% 12.5% 18.8% 9.4% 2.95


g) Site Facilities & Management Issues Key Findings

Stage 1: September 2001 Visitor Appraisal


� While all facilities listed were used, the boardwalk at Murray Falls was most frequently used;

� The condition and management of facilities were the two features most highly rated with over halfof the visitors strongly agreeing with their status;

� Adequacy and appeal of facilities were also rated high;

� Presence of a ranger was important to 51.9% of visitors;

� The three most frequently identified reasons for the ranger’s presence were for site maintenance,safety & security, and to provide information/education.

Stage 2: April 2002 Visitor Appraisal

During this second data collection stage, visitor appraisal of facilities varied slightly.

� While all facilities listed were used, the viewing platform/lookout was most frequently used;

� The condition and management of facilities were again the most highly rated considerations;

� Appeal of facilities was rated higher during this data collection period, and adequacy rated lower;

� Presence of a ranger was important to more visitors – 61.3%;

� The three most frequently identified reasons for the rangers presence and rated higher this seasonwere for site maintenance, safety & security, and to answer questions.


� The most frequently used facility at Murray Falls was the boardwalk to the bottom of the falls;

� The facility most often requested was more shelter sheds – currently one small one exists at the site;

� Condition of facilities received the highest rating ( X = 5.42), with 89.1% of visitors somewhat andstrongly agreeing that the condition was good;

� Of the 57% of visitors for whom the presence of a ranger was important, the majority identified site maintenance as the reason.

1. Visitors use all facilities available.

2. These results suggest that, overall, visitors are very impressed with the condition and maintenance of facilities at Murray Falls, as well as finding them appealing and adequate.


26.09.01 Natural beauties like waterfalls should be enjoyed in a natural way. On a warm to hot day its seems to me to be anatural reaction to cool off and enjoy the beauty of the falls from the water.Pollution from bodies can’t be a problem as swimming is allowed down stream. Authorities should be able toallow a person’s discretion as to danger. I know about liability but danger and accidents could still occurdownstream. The enjoyment I’d hoped to experience was cancelled out by the restrictions.

(Australian visitor, female, 60 years).

26.09.01 My wife and I are true NOMADS (for the last 15,5 years)- Our solar Powered caravan is totally environmentallyset up (PortPotti using acquaChem Gallen etc)- No days- we leave only footprints. We are as comfortable in thebush as in any caravan Park (maybe more so) and enjoy these places. Visits to this site could be- 2 to 3 timesyearly. –every 2-3 years. Depending on which state we are in at any one time. Re smoke from fines- WANATIONAL PARKS are mostly fine- free *gas fined BBQ’s provided). Yesterday a young family sat around thefireplace and continuously burnt wood- even when not cooking etc. Whilst the Aussie tradition of a campfire isgreat, they are not necessary to survive (we don’t use them except in rare circumstances).

(Australian visitor, male, 63 years).26.09.01 Questions were ok except Q3 on environmental agencies would like to know.

(Australian visitor, male, 49 years)

26.09.01 Let’s ‘green peace’ to use a president of United States of America. And than so help me God. Not me, them.(Serbian Orthodox visitor, male, 27 years)

26.09.01 Your survey was easy to comprehend, due to bold type and had an easy scale to rate.(Australian visitor, female, 21 years)

26.09.01 Good survey. Good use of Bold font.(Australian visitor, male, age not specified)

23.09.01 The only animal we saw scavenging was at night- a bandicoot or tiny kangaroo species. We saw no bush turkeys,kookaburras, wallabies, cane toads.

(Australian visitor, female, 38 years)

26.09.01 A very impressive camping area. I will return and bring others.(Australian visitor, female, 40 years)

26.09.01 A well managed park, but hard to get information on ..ain info from world of mouth which requires localknowledge/network. Hard for visitors to access. PS: Your form is a bit long for someone in holiday mode. Whatabout ESL speaker or low level literary visitors?

(Australian visitor, female, 44 years)

23.09.01 My perception of Nth QLD is not what I thought. The water is not blue, beaches are not as good as I thought.(Australian visitor, male, 45 years)

23.09.01 Where are the crocodiles?(Austrian visitor, male, 21 years)


SITE : Murray Falls April 2002

The following are comments made by 24 respondents (26%) who completed the questionnaire at Murray Falls.

Date Comments

04.04.02 On a 3 month visit to Australia we have visited many sites like this throughout QLD, VIC, NSW and ACT. Thiswas one of the “better sites in my opinion as it had good facilities (although basic) and a real attempt seemed tohave been made to preserve it and enhance its attraction to tourists. Some places we have visited have hadboardwalks everywhere so you feel like you’re in a museum rather than in natural surroundings. Plenty of spacefor everyone. (UK visitor, female, 25 years).

04.04.02 Beautiful area.(Australian visitor, female, 38 years).

04.04.02 We have camped in National Parks, State Forests whilst travelling to Cairns. Enjoyed the experience and servicesof those in QLD. Disappointed when there are roads only suited to 4WDs as happened in some parks.

(Irish visitor, female, 27 years).

04.04.02 I have travelled extensively throughout Australia and found it very educational and peaceful: to have stayed innatural environments i.e. State Forests and National Parks; to see places you only hear about; and to seeAustralian animals in their natural environment.

(Irish visitor, male, 26 years).

04.04.02 I was worried that if I said negative things about the park it may be closed down!(Australian visitor, female, 29 years).

04.04.02 I am from Bilyana, 10 minutes drive from here. As a family we come here all the time to swim and camp. I wouldlike a children’s playground in the camping area. This is a very well used area by families with small children, anda playground would make this place just PERFECT!! (Australian visitor, female, ? age).

04.04.02 Some form of control over loud music from other campsites. Not only for other campers, but also for the wildlife.(Australian visitor, 54 years, male).

04.04.02 No loud music from boom boxes.(Australian visitor, 50 years, female).

04.04.02 Keep it plain and simple. It is just enough. Please look into Koombaloomba Dam, Sky Rail, Fox Rail etc.proposals, tenders, costs for locals, environment, who has submissions in – is it too late to stop it? Why set upsomething in such a beautiful spot? Is it possible to send anyone, who is interested in all proposals, every detail onthis subject?

(Australian visitor, 43 years, male).

06.04.02 BBQs were great. Wood too large (I didn’t have an axe), there was no kindling. Overall, great swimming holes,and the rock formations were quite spectacular. A well kept park, great!

(English visitor, 29 years, male).

06.04.02 If fires are allowed, I like the wood to be provided to stop collecting. It is good that toilets/showers are provided inthis high use area. Outlets from shower seemed close to the creek – I may be wrong about this? Facilities wereclean and well maintained. Indigenous people might like to take interested visitors on guided walks. I would beespecially interested in traditional trails like those mentioned in information panels. For example, walk a trail toanother place of interest/significance/beauty. Sites such as this should be protected from long stayindividuals/groups eg. With caravans!! (more than 4 days). (Australian visitor, 50 years, female).

06.04.02 Regarding question 18., it might be a good idea for some of the local indigenous people to provide interpretivewalks in the area for interested visitors.

(Australian visitor, 25 years, ? gender).


06.04.02 Split firewood – and dry. Two German tourists departed before this survey began. They had planned on staying for4 days but left due to inability to cut firewood (did not have an axe). Door on the shower. (Australian visitor, 57 years, male).

06.04.02 Re: Impact of environment on mental health. Cyclone Winifred hit Innisfail in 1986. I’d seen many cyclones comeand go, but this one affected me badly when it went beyond all past experience. I could smell the sap bleedingfrom the trees as their bark was stripped. I could feel the trees screaming in anguish (my husband thought I wasmad!). Afterwards, for weeks, no leaves, nothing green. A green ping-pong table was covered with chrysalis(insects confused), denuded trees put deformed blooms out from trunks (confused trees), little sunbirds becameaggressive and fought over the few blossoms (confused birds), bedraggled cassowaries wondered around our farmand roads cheeping pitifully. All these things (combined with my damaged house, lost crop etc.) led to depressionwhich took years to lift, just as it took years for the trees to recover. I had not realised how much I needed thingsto be “right with the natural world. P.S. there was no such thing as trauma counselling, just as we had no waterfor days and no electricity for weeks. Later that same year my mother died (in April) and my brother (inDecember). Not a good time!!

(Australian visitor, 62 years, female).

06.04.02 To keep things in perspective: the size of the camping area as a percentage of the total park is very small. Sosurely, any human impact, restricted to the camping area and walking tracks, is minor in relation to the total parksize. I believe minor environmental degradation, weeds, and minor tree damage is unavoidable, and of littleconsequence as long as scenic beauty, tranquillity and accessibility is maintained.


06.04.02 We come here and to other similar areas regularly. Therefore we take for granted what is here, and keep comingback because we like what is here.

(Australian visitor, 22 years, female).

06.04.02 Cathu, Broadwater and Murray State Forest are a credit to DNR (State Forestry). I prefer State Forests to NationalParks.


06.04.02 It is a most beautiful spot. Worth a mention in Bedeckers, however, would probably “ruin this place a little.Please don’t allow any caravan parks here. The camping facilities are good enough. Thank you.


06.04.02 A very nice place to get away form things. Very quiet and peaceful, and most of all we can relax. (Australian visitor, 34 years, male).

06.04.02 It’s all good, don’t change a thing!!!(Australian visitor, 30 years, male).

07.04.02 More info about how to save/protect the environment at home!(German visitor, 26 years, male).

07.04.02 Good that you do these questions. I hope that something happens with it.(Dutch visitor, 24 years, male).

07.04.02 I am very, very sensitive to environments. Great survey. Greetings from Holland.(Dutch visitor, 23 years, male).

07.04.02 It was raining so I reduced my involvement.(Australian visitor, 35 years, male).


Comments to Field Assistants Key Findings

The following comments were most frequently reported to the field assistants at Murray Falls.


• The lack of fire wood was the most observed comment. Frequently, visitors inquired as towhere (if any) the fire wood was kept at the site.

• Other comments focused on the management of the site. For example, one visitor wanted toknow the difference between a National Park site, and a Forestry Park site.

• Visitors also reported that they would like no further development or expansion of the area.

Stage 2: April 2002

• The most frequent theme in Stage 2 was on the management of the site. For example, a groupof Swedish tourists were curious as to what the Wet Tropics Management Agency does, whileanother visitor was concerned about the survey aiming to change the site.


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MADE BY RESPONDENTS TO FIELD ASSISTANTS

SITE : Murray Falls September 2001

The following are comments made by 13 visitors to the field assistants at Murray Falls.

Date Comments

22.09.01 Interested in whether research was funded by Wet Tropics(Australian Visitor, 30 years, female)

22.09.01 Indigenous person: very interested in what is a National Park and what is a Forestry Park(Indigenous Visitor,39 years, male)

22.09.01 Lack of fireplace was a concern.(Australian visitor, 65 years, female)

22.09.01 Mentioned the environment was generally undisturbed.(Australian visitor, 19 years, female)

22.09.01 Wood at Barron Gorge had to be paid for. Free wood at Murray Falls discouraged destroying forest for fire wood.(Indigenous Australian, 65 years, female)

22.09.01 Wood for fire too green.(Australian visitor, 62 years, male)

22.09.01 Said they did not expect much, therefore impressed with all sites in the region, and the facilities they contain.(German visitor, 23 years, female)

22.09.01 He thought that the park was having a very peaceful feeling may be because of absorbing spirituality.(Australian visitor, 45 years, male)

23.09.01 Inquired as to whether there was firewood at Murray Falls(Irish visitor, 30 years, female)

23.09.01 Maybe firewood was a concern as Tully Gorge may not have had wood (?)(Australian visitor, 25 years, male)

23.09.01 Mentioned need for toilet block in day use area. Otherwise there should be no expansion of area and facilities. Asnatural is as best.

(Australian visitor, 41 years, female)

26.09.01 Felt that there is plenty info on the indigenous people and none on whites , ie early settlers and pioneers.(Australian visitor, 60 years, female))

26.09.01 Wants no further development of the parks infrastructure.(Australian visitor, 44 years, male)


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MADE BY RESPONDENTS TO FIELD ASSISTANTS

SITE : Murray Falls April 2002

The following are comments made by 11 visitors to the field assistants at Murray Falls.

Date Comments

04.04.02 Mosquitoes are really tough!(German visitor, 32 years, male)

04.04.02 Very active, very interested to participate and keen to know what Wet Tropics Management Agency does.(Swedish visitors, 21 years, male; 20 years, male; 21 years female)

04.04.02 I introduced myself to ranger Mike Murphy (26 years park ranger). Murray Falls park was the first park inQueensland and used as a model for all others he said. Murray Falls is Forestry Department.

(Comment made by field assistant)06.04.02 Stated: regular avid camper, visits many sites.

(Australian visitor, 57 years, male)

06.04.02 Two dogs with this group.(Australian visitor, 19 years, female; English visitor 19 years, male)

06.04.02 Believed walk to be pleasant.(Australian visitor, 39 years, female)

07.04.02 Very concerned with survey aiming to change site.(Australian visitor, 41 years, male)

07.04.02 Trail Bike rider from Upper Murray, visits all the time for swims, BBQ and hanging out with wife and friends.(Male visitor, other details are unknown)


BEHAVIOURAL EVENTS Key Findings

Combined Data Sets

From the behaviours recorded at Murray Falls in September 2001 and April 2002, the

following three behaviours were the most frequently observed.

• Domestic Animals

Despite signage stating that animals are prohibited, there were a number of sightings of

domestic dogs on the site. While in most cases dogs were observed in the back of vehicles, there

were some instances of dogs running around the site without leashes, and also swimming.

• Deliberate damage to plants

This behaviour was only observed during April 2002 (wet season). A group of supervised

children were observed stripping back bark on many trees to make their own fire. The following

day, a man stripped back bark on some trees for the same purpose. The damage from this was

extensive.

• Undesignated area use

In both stages of data collection, groups of people were seen swimming in undesignated

(prohibited) areas on the site. In Stage 1, tourists were seen swimming underneath the falls,

while in Stage 2, groups were seen swimming in undesignated areas along the path. Swimming

in undesignated areas appears to be a risk behaviour for this particular site as a girl observed in

Stage 2, slipped and cut her chin.


BEHAVIOURAL EVENTS

The following are critical incidental observations of behavioural events made opportunistically by field assistantsduring the period of administration of surveys and counts of vehicles/visitors.

Behavioural Topic Comment : SEPTEMBER 2001 Comment: April 2002

Domestic Animals 22.09.01• Dog present. 14.25 hrs.• Two dogs left in back of van while owners

went for walk.23.09.01• Dog in back of car.• Dog present. 10.07 hrs.• As vehicle with domestic animal drove out –

owners acknowledged the fact that theyweren’t supposed to have dog in park. 10.44hrs.

06.04.02• Two dogs with no leash, wandering around

with owners (party of four) in the day use area.13.45 hrs.

• Two dogs in swimming area. 16.00 hrs.

Deliberate damageto plants

• N/A 06.04.02• Children stripping bark severely – trying to

make their own fire next to adults and fire pit.Adults were unconcerned 15.00 – 15.50 hrs.

07.04.02• Man stripped bark for kindling. 11.50 hrs.

Undesignated AreaUse

23.09.01• Eight people swimming below the falls (a

group of ‘low key tours’ with Japanesetravellers).

06.04.02• Group of four swimming in areas down path

(prohibited areas). One girl cut and bruised herchin. 16.30 hrs.

Speeding 22.09.01• 4WD skidding on road near counter site. 16.08

hrs.

• N/A

Risk Activity • N/A 06.04.02• Visitors are sliding down rocks into water on

plastic boards ‘yahooing’ each time. 15.00 –16.10 hrs.

• Old woman slipped on slippery rocks – hurtknee. 11.58 hrs.

AggressiveBehaviour

• N/A • N/A

Other 22.09.01• Visitor interaction with ants. 11.04 hrs.23.09.01• Ants nest blocking visitor pathway – visitor

removed ants. 11.10 hrs.

06.04.02• Littering food packaging. 13.00 hrs.07.04.02

Section TwoInfrastructure Inventory and Profile

• Site Infrastructure Inventory

• Site Information and Signage

SECTION

TWO

Infrastructure Site Inventory and Signage /Dry & Wet Season 2001/02: Murray Falls 56

Bentrupperbäumer, J./ Rainforest CRC & JCU

Figure 1: Murray Falls site map and activity nodes (Source: SitePlan 1993).

Camping Area

Day Use Area

Theme - Waterfall

ACTIVITY NODES

MURRAY FALLS

Theme - Waterfall

Camping Area

Day Use Area



Site Infrastructure Inventory Key Findings

The following table is a summary version of the inventory of features/facilities recorded at the three site activity nodes. Aninventory was first undertaken in 1999(yellow shading) and repeated at time of distribution of questionnaires in 2001/02.

MURRAY FALLS Wet Tropics Site No.: 96 Management Agency: DNR 1999; EPA/QPWS 2001Dates Assessed: April 1999 and 22nd September 2001

Site ParametersAnnual vehicle/visitor #Site Access:Road Type:Road Conditions:

1999Vehicles = 12 228 Visitors = 42 798RoadUnsealed all weatherMinor erosion / few potholes

Sept. 2001 – Sept. 2002Vehicles = 11,696 Visitors = 31,462RoadUnsealed all weather (Access road = 2.4kms)Minor erosion/no potholes

Day Use Area Camp Area Theme - WaterfallFacilities / InfrastructureLandscaping:Signage*: Corporate Identity Visitor Orientation Visitor Advice Regulatory Interpretive Foreign LanguageCapacity/Description:

*For full signage details andinventory see next page

1999Hard

------5 picnic areas,approx 20seating spaces

2001Hard

Absent642AbsentAbsent5 picnic areas,approx 20seating spaces

1999Hard

------Camp sitescategory: nearvehicle, approx56 seatingspaces

2001Hard/Soft

Absent6420Absent5 m a j o rlocations; allnear vehicles;

1999Hard

------Boardwalk towaterfalls

2001Hard

Absent233AbsentAbsentBoardwalk towaterfalls

Amenities / UtilitiesToilets:Showers:Bins:Water:Power:Telephone:Other:

AbsentAbsent3 with lidsPresentAbsentAbsent3 wood BBQs,5 tables

AbsentAbsent5 with lidsAbsentAbsentAbsent3 wood BBQs,5 tables withbenches,firewood store

Septic2 cold15 with lids9 tapsAbsentAbsent2 fire sites, 10wood BBQs, 1fire wood store,13 tables, 1shelter shed

Septic1 cold13 with lids8 tapsAbsentAbsent9 fire sites, 2fire wood store,3 wood BBQs,12 tables, 1shelter shed

AbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsent

AbsentAbsentPresentAbsentAbsentAbsent1 table present

AppealAttractiveness: Naturalness (within) Naturalness (surrounds) Nuisance insects Built environment ShadeNoise (human origin):

MediumMediumLowHigh50%Nil

MediumMediumNilHigh70%Low

MediumMediumNilMedium50%Nil

MediumMediumNilMedium40-60%Low

HighHighHighHigh80%Nil

HighHighLowHigh70-90%Nil

BiophysicalLandform:Vegetation:Geology:Water body:

LevelSclerophyllGranitesRiver (fresh)

Gentle inclineSclerophyllGranitesNil

Gentle/Moderate inclineSclerophyllGranitesRiver (fresh)

Impact AssessmentCondition Indicators: Litter (visual impact) Litter (amount) Litter (type) Waste Management

Wear on facilities Vandalism / graffitiEnvironmental Indicators: Soil erosion Exotic weeds Exotic ornamentals Vegetation

Wildlife

NilNilNilBins empty andcleanLowNil

LowHighNilLow break/mutilationNo evidence ofhabituation

Nil<5 itemsPaper, plasticBins empty andcleanLowLow

LowMediumNilLow break/mutilation

Absent

Nil<5 items-Bins empty andcleanLow-

MediumHighNilMed. break/mutilationNo evidence ofhabituation

Low6-20 itemsPlastic, paperBins empty andcleanLowLow

MediumMediumLowMed. break /low mutilationAbsent

NilNilNilNA

Low-

NilNilNilLow break/mutilationNo evidence ofhabituation

NilNilNilNA

Low/Medium-

Nil/LowLow/MediumNilLow break/mutilationAbsent

Additional Notes:I n t e n s i v e a s s e s s m e n tundertaken on all activity nodesin 1999, 2001 & 2002(Bentrupperbäumer & Reser2000 and Wilson 2002)

Weed infestation extensivethrough surrounding area.Good roads (gravel) (1999).Picnic area consists of: 5 car parkareas, 3 picnic areas and 3 riveraccess points.

Weed infestation extensive throughsurrounding area (1999). Manyexotics eg. Pawpaw, pineapple,passionfruit, ginger along edges(2001/2).

Intensive assessmentundertaken on walking trail to topof waterfalls in both1999 & 2001/02. Separate report has thesedetails (Bentrupperbäumer &Reser 2000 and Wilson 2002).



Site Infrastructure Inventory Details

A. Day Use Area (lower riverside area)

River Access: Three well defined river access points (cement steps); three associated and well defined parking areas with two, three and six bays; two bins.

Picnic Area: Three picnic areas; one firewood storage area

FacilitiesPicnic Area #1

(River Side)Picnic Area #2

(Camp Side)Picnic Area #3

(River Side)Tables 2 2 1

Sitting Benches 8 8 4BBQ (brick) 1 1 1

Wood store/table (brick) 1 1 1Bins (plastic inserts) 2 2 1

Chopping Blocks 1 1 -Parking Areas 1 1 1Parking Bays 4 2 3

B. Camping Area (upper high ground area)

Amenities Area: Toilet block; shower block

Camp Area: Five broad camp areas defined by road; no numbered camp sites; no defined parking areas; no vehicle barriers; one firewood storage area; Camp registration

FacilitiesCamp Area

#1(1st River Side)

Camp Area#2

(1st Middle)

Camp Area #3

(2nd River Side)

Camp Area#4

(Top Middle)

Camp Area#5

(Forest Side)Tables 2 - 2 3 5

Sitting Benches 4 - 4 6 10Fire Ring & plate 3 2 1 2 1

BBQ (brick) - - - - 3Wood store/table (brick) - - - - 3

Bins 4 2 2 3 4Taps 2 2 2 2 4

Chopping Blocks 2 2 1 2 4Shelter Shed + benches - 1 + 2 - - -

C. Theme – Boardwalk to Waterfalls

Facilities #Tables 1

Sitting Benches 3Bins 1Taps 1



A. Day Use Area

Picnic Area #1 Picnic Area #2 River Access

B. Camping Area

Fire rings

Shelter Shed

Showers

C. Theme – Boardwalk to Waterfall

Picnic Area at start ofBoardwalk

Start of Boardwalk Boardwalk Lookout

Note: Details of signage next section.



Site Information and Signage

The information and signage for the five key components of the site (road access, boardwalk, walking tracks, campground area and day use area) were grouped, as best as possible, according the Department of Natural Resource’sfive broad sign categories. The inventory includes numbers of actual sign structures and total information typesaccording to these categories and within each of the activity nodes.

Key Findings

� A total of 60 sign structures containing 83 separate sets of information relevant to Murray Falls were recordedat the site and along the main and access roads.

� Most of these signs (42.2%) were for the purpose of visitor orientation;

� The only interpretive signage present focused on Aboriginal cultural information and was located along thewalking track;

� No foreign language signage was present at Murray Falls.

Table 1: Number and type of signs at Murray Falls.

Sign Category

MainRoad(BruceH’way)

AccessRoad

(2.4kmgravel)

Day Use/Picnic Area

CampingArea

WalkingTrack

Theme -Boardwalk TOTAL

Interpretive11

(Aboriginalcultural)

11

Visitor orientation8 3 9 9 2 4

35(19)

Visitor advice 8 4 5 1 119

(12)

Regulatory 3 3 1 1 513

(5)Corporate Identity

55

(3)

TOTALInformation Types

16 11 16 15 15 10 83

#Sign Structures 8 7 12 10 15 8 60

SitePlan 93 (39)

Comparative Data Set

SitePlan undertook an audit of signage at Murray Falls in April 1993. Information from this audit has beenincluded in the above table (italics and parenthesis) for comparative purposes.



Main Road (Bruce Highway)

Visitor Orientation Signs (8)

Two north entrance; two Billyana entrance. Two north entrance; two Billyana entrance

Access Road (2.4km gravel road)

Visitor Orientation Signs (1) and Regulatory Sign (1)

Corporate Identity Signs (6) and Regulatory Sign (1)



Day Use / Picnic Area Signage


Visitor Advice Signs (4)

Regulatory Signs (2)



Camping Area Signage



Walking Track Signage




Visitor Advice Signs (1) Regulatory Signs (1)

Interpretive Signs (Cultural) (11)



Theme – Boardwalk Signage



Regulatory Signs (3)

Section ThreeVehicle and Visitor Monitoring

• Vehicle and Visitor Records

• Traffic Counter Data

SECTION

THREE

Vehicle and Visitor Monitoring/Dry & Wet Season 2001/02: Murray Falls 68

Murray Falls: Summary Table of Visitor and Vehicle Data

Visitors Vehicles

MajorType

# in8hrs

# pervehicle

Highest# at onetime

Time:hours

MajorType

# in8hrs

Highest# at onetime

Time :hours

AverageLengthof Stay

22Sept2001

66 2.28 20 1600 29 9 1600 94 mins

23Sept

Couples61%

88 2.32 38 1430

Cars52%

38 16 1350 138 mins

6April2002

145 2.90 98 1430 50 14 1430 197 mins

7April

singles38%

couples28% 131 2.85 73 1330

Cars44%,4WD36% 46 24 1100 195 mins

Note: Data based on four x eight hour observations of vehicles and visitor occupancy in September 2001 and April 2002.

Murray Falls: Summary Table of Traffic Counter Data

Visitors Vehicles

Average Highest#

Time 0fHighest

Lowest#

Time 0fLowest

Average Highest # Lowest #

Yearly 31,462 visitors 11,696 vehicles

Monthly 2,545 3,475January

20021,498

February2002

946 1,292 557

Weekly 605 1337December

2001,Week 4

304February

2002,Week 2

225 497 114

Daily :Weekdays

75 28226th

December2001

1925th

February2002

28 105 7

Daily:Weekends

110 28031st

March2002

3016th

February2002

41 104 11

Note: Data based on the continuous recording of traffic using the traffic counter/metro count system from September 2001 to October 2002.


Vehicle and Visitor Records Key Findings

Data for these records were established from eight hours of continuous observations of vehiclesand vehicle occupancy during each day of the survey distribution periods, Stage 1 (22nd & 23rd

September 2001) and Stage 2 (6th & 7th April 2002). This is the first time this type of data has beencollected at Murray Falls and so previous data is unavailable for comparative purposes.

Stage 1: 22nd and 23rd September 2001

Pattern of access to and use of Murray Falls: Figure 1

General• Vehicle Type: More than half of the vehicles using the site over the two days of observation were

cars (52%).• There were no commercial coaches/buses using Murray Falls during this period.• Visitor Category: Murray Falls appears to be favoured by independent visitors with couples (two

people) making up the major visitor category over these two days (60.6%).• Vehicle and visitor numbers were higher on the second day than on the first day of observation.

Day 1 (22nd September 2001 - Saturday)• There were three distinct peaks in vehicle and visitor numbers around 1200, 1500 and 1600 hours;• The highest number of visitors at the site at any one time was 20 at 1600 hours. This number declined to

17, the number of visitors at the site through till after 1700 hours.• The highest number of vehicles at the site at any one time was 9 at 1600 hours. The number of

vehicles at the site remained below 10 all day.

Day 2 (23rd September 2001 - Sunday)• There were two distinct peaks in vehicle and visitor numbers at 1200 hours and between 1400 and 1500

hours.• The highest number of visitors at the site at the same time was 38 at 1430 hours.• For most of the day the number of visitors at the site at any one time remained above ten. Between

1100 and 1530 hours this increased to above 20.• The highest number of vehicles at the site at any one time was 16 at 1350 hours. For most of the day

number of vehicles at the site remained between 10 and 16.

Length of Stay: Figures 2 and 3

• There were fewer vehicles and visitors observed at the site on Day 1 (29 vehicles, 66 visitors) comparedto Day 2 (38 vehicles, 88 visitors).

• The average length of stay was 94 minutes on Day 1, and 138 minutes on Day 2.• On Day 1, 55.2% of the vehicles stayed longer than 50 minutes. On Day 2 this had increased to 65.8%.


Bentrupperbäumer J / Rainforest CRC & JCU

VEHICLE AND VISITOR COUNT DATA: MURRAY FALLS

Figure 1: Records for vehicles and visitors over two eight hour period.

Murray Falls (22.09.2001 & 23.09.2001)

0

10

20

30

40

Time Period (0830 - 1700hrs; 5 min sampling points)

Num

ber

22nd Sept. Vehicles 22nd Sept. Visitors 23rd Sept. Vehicles 23rd Sept. Visitors

0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

Car 52% 4WD 18%Van 9% Truck 3%Not Stated 18%

Murray Falls 23/09/001

0

5

10

15

20

Tour Group Family Couple Single

Murray Falls 22/09/001

0

5

10

15

20




Figure 2: Length of stay of each vehicle at Murray Falls on Day 1 – 22.09.2001

Figure 3: Length of stay of each vehicle at Murray Falls on Day 2 – 23.09.2001

Murray Falls (22.09.2001)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Individual vehicles (total = 29)

Len

gth

of

stay

(m

ins.

)


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38


Len

gth

of

stay

(m

ins.

)

Average Length of Stay = 94 minutes


Vehicle and Visitor Monitoring/Dry & Wet Season 2001/02: Murray Fall 72


Vehicle and Visitor Records Key Findings

The following key findings are from data recorded during the 2 x 8 hour observation periods during 6th

and 7th April 2002.

Stage 2: 6th and 7th April 2002

Pattern of access to and use of Murray Falls: Figure 4

General• Vehicle Type: Cars (44%) were the major vehicle type recorded at the site over the two days of

observation. However, 4WD vehicles (36%) were also a frequently recorded vehicle type.• There were no commercial coaches/buses using Murray Falls during this period.• Visitor Category: Murray Falls appears to be favoured by independent visitors with singles and couples

making up the major visitor categories for these two days (37.9% and 28.4%).• Vehicle and visitor numbers were higher on Day 1 (Saturday) than on Day 2 (Sunday).

Day 1 (6th April 2002 - Saturday)• Vehicle and visitor numbers, in general, climbed gradually before rising sharply around 1400 hours.• The highest number of visitors recorded at the site at the one time was 98 at 1430 hours. For one hour from this

time visitor numbers remained above 80.• From 1200 hours till 1700 hours visitor numbers at the site at any one time remained above 30.• For the whole observation period vehicles and visitor numbers did not decline below ten.

Day 2 (7th April 2002 - Sunday)• Vehicle and visitor numbers followed a similar pattern to the previous day with a gradual increase evident

before rising sharply around 1330 hours.• The highest visitor number recorded at the site at the one time was 73 at 1330 hours. The visitor number

remained above 60 for the remaining observation period.• For the whole observation period vehicles and visitor numbers did not decline below ten.

Length of Stay: Figures 5 and 6

• There were more vehicles and visitors at the site on Day 1 (50 vehicles, 145 visitors) compared to Day 2 (46vehicles, 131 visitors).

• Unlike findings made during the dry season (September 2001), the average length of stay reported for the twodays of observation during the wet season were highly comparable. The average length of stay reported for thefirst and second days were 197 and 195 minutes respectively.

• On Day 1, 72% of the vehicles stayed 50 minutes or longer. On Day 2 this had increased to 80%.



VEHICLE AND VISITOR COUNT DATA (WET): MURRAY FALLS

Figure 4: Records for vehicles and visitors over two eight hour periods

Murray Falls (06.04.2002 & 07.04.2002)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Time Period (0800 - 1700hrs; 5 min sampling points)

Nu

mb

er

6th April Vehicles 6th April Visitors 7th April Vehicles 7th April Visitors

Car 44% 4WD 36%Van 9% Bus 3%Ute 3% Bicycle 2%Truck 2%

0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 17000800

Murray Falls 6/4/02

0

5

10

15

20


Murray Falls 7/4/02

0

5

10

15

20




Figure 5: Length of stay of each vehicle at Murray Falls on Day 1 – 6th April 2002

Figure 6: Length of stay of each vehicle at Murray Falls on Day 2 – 7th April 2002


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600


Len

gth

of

stay

(m

ins.

)


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600


Len

gth

of

stay

(m

ins.

)





Traffic Counter Data Key Findings

The traffic counter was installed at Murray Falls for 12 months (September 2001 – September 2002).The following key findings are associated with this data set.

Yearly Estimate = 11,696 vehicles and 31,462 visitors

Monthly Records: Figure 7

• On average 946 vehicles (range = 557 – 1292) and 2,545 people (range = 1498 –3475) visited Murray Fallseach month.

• October, December 2001, and January, August 2002 received the highest visitation rates during whichperiod vehicle numbers exceeded 1,100. Even though the numbers for October, January and August werehigher due to these being five week months, they nevertheless were, on average, representative of the busiestperiods.

Weekly Records: Figure 8

� On average 225 vehicles (range = 114 – 497) and 605 people (range = 304 –1337) visit Murray Falls eachweek.

� There were four discernible periods of increased vehicular traffic levels recorded during sampling: earlyOctober – Week 1 (school holidays), late December/early January – Week 4 (Christmas/New Year), lateMarch – Week 4 / early April – Week 1 (Easter), and late September – Week 4 / early October 2002 – Week 1(school holidays).

� The highest number of vehicles and visitors was in December 2001, Week 4, during which week 497 vehiclesand 1337 visitors used this site.

Daily Records : Figure 9 and Table 1

� On average, 32 vehicles (range = 7 – 105) and 82 people (range = 19 – 284) visit Murray Falls each day.Average weekday use = 28.2 vehicles per day;

� As expected, weekends are the busiest times with Sunday recording, on average, 46 vehicles (range 15 – 105),and 123 people (highest number = 282 people on 26th December 2001 and 280 people on 31st March 2002).Average weekend use = 41 vehicles per day.

Comparative Traffic Counter Data

A. Estimated visitor use at Murray Falls 1992/93: (Source: Manidis Roberts 1993/94)• vehicles = 11,251; people = 31,504 (calculated on 2.8 people per vehicle)• Average weekend use = 22.7 vehicles• Average weekday use = 18.7 vehicles

B. Estimated visitor use at Murray Falls 1998: (Source: Bentrupperbäumer 2000)• vehicles = 12,228; people = 42,798 (calculated on 3.5people per vehicle)



TRAFFIC COUNTER/METRO COUNT DATA: MURRAY FALLS

Figure 7: Monthly Records for Vehicles and Visitors

Traffic Counter/Metro Count Monthly Data for Murray Falls(3Sept 2001 to 13Oct 2002)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Monthly Record

Nu

mb

er

VehiclesPeople (x 2.69)

Vehicles 801 1103 752 1134 1292 557 737 703 980 870 1096 1266 1012 493

People (x 2.69) 2154 2967 2023 3051 3475 1498 1983 1890 2634 2340 2950 3406 2726 1326

Sept (4Wk) Oct (5Wk) Nov (4Wk) Dec (5Wk) Jan (5Wk) Feb (4Wk) Mar (4Wk) Apr (4Wk) May (5Wk) June (4Wk) July (4Wk) Aug(5Wk) Sept (4Wk) Oct (2Wk)

Average Monthly Traffic = 946 vehicles



TRAFFIC COUNTER/METRO COUNT DATA: MURRAY FALLS

Figure 8: Weekly Records for Vehicles and Visitors

Traffic Counter/Metro Count Weekly Data for Murray Falls (3 Sept 2001 to 13Oct 2002)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Weekly Record

Nu

mb

er

Vehicles People (x2.69)

Vehicles 202202184213295209196177226199203184166233161243497376253211246206172114141130151133132321283113142165223223223176160170214220266294251258293260266234289217238195243336302191

People (x2.69) 543543495573794562527476608535546495447627433654133101681568662554463307379350406358355863761304382443602602602473431457576592715791676695788699716629779583642526653905812514

S1 S2 S3 S4 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 N1 N2 N3 N4 D1 D2 D3 D4 J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 F1 F2 F3 F4 M1

M2

M3

M4

A1 A2 A3 A4 M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

J1 J2 J3 J4 J1 J2 J3 J4 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 S1 S2 S3 S4 O1 O2

School Holidays

Average Weekly Traffic = 225 vehicles


TRAFFIC COUNTER/METRO COUNT DATA FOR MURRAY FALLS

Table 1: Daily Records of Vehicles and Visitors at Murray Falls

SEPTEMBER 2001 Data highlighted in yellow are the daily averages for this month. Traffic counter was not installed until Week 3.

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN2001Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People

Wk 13-9Sept

24

65

28

75

28

75

29

78

30

81

22

59

41

110Wk 210-16Sept

24

65

28

75

28

75

29

78

30

81

22

59

41

110Wk 317-23Sept

23

62

28

75

26

70

21

56

23

62

26

70

39

105*Wk 424-30Sept

25

67

28

75

29

78

36

97

36

97

18

48

42

113

OCTOBER 2001


*Wk 11-7Oct

34

91

49

132

47

126

41

110

47

126

32

86

48

129Wk 28-14Oct

24

65

20

53

25

67

20

54

27

72

38

102

56

151Wk 315-21Oct

26

70

24

65

23

62

20

54

18

48

41

110

46

124Wk 422-28Oct

14

38

21

56

16

43

24

65

25

67

31

83

47

126Wk 529-4 Nov

19

51

31

83

38

102

35

94

21

56

33

89

51

137

NOVEMBER 2001


Wk 15-11Nov

18

48

17

46

22

59

24

65

31

83

35

94

53

143Wk 212-18Nov

25

67

23

62

18

48

20

54

26

70

49

132

45

121Wk 319-25Nov

25

67

26

70

30

81

22

59

19

51

29

78

34

91Wk 426-2Dec

14

38

18

48

23

62

15

40

25

67

31

83

42

113

DECEMBER 2001 Blue = Public Holiday

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN2001 Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People Vehicles People

Wk 13-9Dec

21

56

34

91

22

59

20

54

23

62

43

116

72

194Wk 210-16Dec

27

73

11

30

31

83

13

35

26

70

23

62

32

86*Wk 317-23Dec

35

94

36

97

38

102

20

54

25

67

37

100

53

143*Wk 424-30Dec

23

62

60

161

105

282

61

164

89

239

82

221

79

213



JANUARY 2002 Blue = Public Holiday


*Wk 131Dec-6Jan

44118

65175

3389

51137

44118

63169

77207

*Wk 27-13Jan

17

46

35

94

32

86

38

102

32

86

36

97

65

175*Wk 314-20Jan

32

86

38

102

41

110

28

75

24

65

16

43

34

91*Wk 421-27Jan

33

89

21

56

20

54

21

56

24

65

53

143

75

202Wk 528-3Feb

66

178

27

73

18

48

23

62

18

48

26

70

30

81

FEBRUARY 2002


Wk 14-10Feb

13

35

16

43

17

46

26

70

18

48

41

110

42

113Wk 211-17Feb

22

59

21

56

21

56

13

35

13

35

11

30

15

40Wk 318-24Feb

10

27

14

38

16

43

23

62

19

51

31

83

29

78Wk 425-3Mar

7

19

15

40

13

35

17

46

16

43

31

83

33

89

MARCH 2002 Data highlighted in yellow are daily averages for this month.


Wk 14-10Mar

17

46

21

56

15

40

26

70

21

56

27

73

25

67Wk 211-17Mar

17

46

15

40

14

38

19

51

16

43

32

86

22

59Wk 318-24Mar

21

56

15

40

21

56

11

30

12

32

46

124

16

43Wk 425-31Mar

16

43

16

43

18

48

24

65

66

178

80

215

104

280

APRIL 2002 Data highlighted in yellow are daily averages for this month.


*Wk 11-7Apr

76

204

25

67

46

124

24

65

33

89

37

100

42

113Wk 28-14Apr

14

38

11

30

19

51

12

32

19

51

19

51

20

54Wk 315-21Apr

11

30

19

51

12

32

17

46

21

56

41

110

22

59Wk 422-28Apr

19

51

18

48

26

70

18

48

24

65

32

86

28

75

MAY 2002 Data highlighted in green are the daily averages for the overall site data set. Traffic counter was removed during this period for road works.


Wk 129-5May

28

75

27

73

30

81

27

73

29

79

36

98

46

123



Wk26-12May

28

75

27

73

30

81

27

73

29

79

36

98

46

123Wk313-19May

28

75

27

73

30

81

27

73

29

79

36

98

46

123Wk420-26May

28

75

17

46

20

54

19

51

20

54

34

91

38

102Wk527-2June

21

56

20

54

22

59

17

46

24

65

24

65

32

86

JUNE 2002 Blue = Public Holiday


Wk 13-9June

21

56

22

59

20

54

23

62

20

54

30

81

34

91Wk 210-16June

60

161

29

78

27

73

27

73

16

43

27

73

28

75Wk 317-23June

21

56

23

62

29

78

23

62

35

94

33

89

56

151*Wk 424-30June

31

83

25

67

32

86

36

97

33

89

49

132

60

161

JULY 2002 Blue = Public Holiday


*Wk 11-7July

48

129

49

132

51Tsv 137

29

78

36

97

38

102

43

116Wk 28-14July

42

113

30

81

40

108

38

102

42

113

24

65

35

94Wk 315-21July

30

81

30

81

43

116

34

91

43Cns 116

39

105

39

105Wk 422-28July

42

113

45

121

61

164

41

110

21

56

43

116

40

108

AUGUST 2002


Wk 129-04Aug

29

78

30

81

38

102

33

89

32

86

34

91

64

172Wk 205-11Aug

42

113

33

89

38

102

42

113

36

97

38

102

37

100Wk 312-18Aug

32

86

31

83

28

75

30

81

40

108

34

91

39

105Wk 419-25Aug

27

73

28

75

33

89

40

108

58

156

50

135

53

143Wk 526-01Sep

31

83

30

81

24

65

34

91

28

75

31

83

39

105

SEPTEMBER 2002


Wk 102-08Sep

30

81

24

65

34

91

30

81

24

65

43

116

53

143Wk 209-15Sep

20

54

27

73

30

81

30

81

24

65

22

59

42

113Wk 316-22Sep

25

67

21

56

26

70

30

81

31

83

56

151

54

145*Wk 423-29Sep

36

97

43

116

43

116

40

108

51

137

49

132

74

199



OCTOBER 2002 Data highlighted in green is the daily average for the overall site data set.


*Wk 130-06Oct

41

110

29

78

44

118

36

97

35

94

40

108

77

207Wk 207-13Oct

25

67

27

73

26

70

14

38

24

65

29

78

46

123

AVERAGES 2875

2773

3081

2773

2979

3698

46123

Note: *These dates indicate school holidays.People estimates are based on vehicle numbers x 2.69, the average number of people in vehicles established from questionnaire, item # 8. Data highlighted inyellow or in green were not included in the overall daily averages.

Figure 9: Average daily vehicle and visitor numbers for Murray Falls.

Traffic Counter/Metro Count Daily Averges Data for Murray Falls (03 Sept 2001 to 13 Oct 2002)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Day

Nu

mb

er

VehiclesPeople (x 2.69)

Average Daily Traffic = 32 vehicles



Comparative Traffic Counter Data

(Source: Manidis Roberts 1993/1994 study, Bentrupperbäumer, 2000, WTMA Traffic CounterRecords 1994-1997)

Figure 10: Monthly visitor estimates established since 1994

• Visitor estimates for the period 1994-1998 have been based on 3.5 people per vehicle as established by theManidis Roberts 1993/94 study;

• Visitor estimates for 2001-2002 period have been based on 2.7 people per vehicle as established by this study;

• Visitor estimates were the highest for 1997;

• Visitor estimates for this study period, 2001-2002, and 1994 were the lowest;

• Consistently, the month with the lowest estimates was February.

Figure 10: Monthly visitor estimates for Murray Falls established from WTMA traffic counter data 1994 – 1997,Bentrupperbäumer 1998 study, and this study, 2001-2002. Data is unavailable for the period 1999 to 2000.

Monthly Visitor Estimates

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

Months

Nu

mb

er o

f V

isit

ors

1993 2225 2953

1994 3534 1163 1523 2802 2201 2879 3177 3213 3141 2626 2419 3244

1995 3963 2123 2192 3950 2582 4067 4126 3527 4560

1996 3782 5706 4463 5291 6977 4039 6802 7063 3767 4806

1997 7970 4301 4301 5153 6619 7524 10930

1998 2824 3363 3570 4448 3906 3150

2001 2209 2967 2023 2051

2002 3475 1498 1983 2001

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Section FourManagement Considerations

• Presentation

• Opportunities

• Specific Problems & Issues

SECTION

FOUR

Management Considerations: Murray Falls 84

Presentation

Significance WHA Status, Natural & Cultural Attributes, Historical Context

Management Agency Identity and Presence, Conservation and Protection

Information Sources and Signage

Structural Features Layout and Design, Infrastructure and Facilities

“The Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA) was established to manage the area to meetGovernment commitments under the World Heritage Convention which are specifically to protect,conserve, present, transmit to future generations, and rehabilitate the Wet Tropics WHA” (WTMA, 2000,pg.4). Presentation in the context of a World Heritage property and with respect to WTWHA visitor sitesencompasses the significance and meaning of World Heritage status, the nature of the natural and culturalattributes as ‘heritage values’ for which an area has been listed, and the historical context of the site,including its natural history and history of human use, association and meaning. Presentation alsoencompasses a number of other management responsibilities, including maintenance, communication, sitedesign, amenity provision, and identification of those authorities and agencies responsible for themanagement of the site. While many of these considerations are often subsumed under the term‘interpretation’, the term presentation is used here along with subheadings to more directly address thespecific mandate and multiple responsibilities of a World Heritage management authority.

Significance: WHA Status, Natural and Cultural Attributes, Historical Context

WHA Status The presentation of Murray Falls as a Wet Tropics World Heritage Area site (WTWHA)appears to be problematic. It is of concern that approximately 85 percent of respondents were not aware that thearea had any special significance, and only 14 percent of respondents appeared to be aware that this site was a partof the WTWHA (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 34-35). This is especially noteworthy in that 69.8 percent of visitorssurveyed were Australian, and 68.8 percent of these Australian visitors were local residents (Section 1 VisitorSurvey pg 20-21), who would be expected to be knowledgeable about the status of this area. It is also noteworthygiven that this is a site that has two signs specifically identifying it as a WTWHA site, although both are at differentlocations along the access road (Section 2 Site Inventory pg 60-61).

Natural and Cultural Attributes A principal aspect of presentation of a WTWHA site is natural andcultural heritage interpretation. Murray Falls has a comprehensive selection of indigenous cultural heritageinterpretation signs located along the rainforest/lookout walking track (Section 2 Site Inventory pg 62). While thissignage did not receive as high a rating as the other information sources (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 30-31), itnevertheless plays a critical role in enhancing visitor, and in particular local visitor, awareness of this most importantWTWHA attribute. The actual involvement of indigenous people in a very visible and meaningful way in themanagement of this site and as guides for visitors (Section 1 Visitor Comments pg 44-45), would provide anotherimportant way of presenting both the historic and contemporary indigenous cultural heritage significance of MurrayFalls. What natural interpretation material exists is embedded in the indigenous cultural interpretive signs and sohighlights the interconnectedness and hence significance of both as WTWHA attributes.

Historical Context Another consideration with respect to significance of the site relates to itspredominant use by local residents (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 20-21). Interpretation material which addresses thepost-contact history of the site is absent. Such historical information (e.g., changing land use, roads, initial protectedarea status) might well be of interest to both indigenous and nonindigenous local residents as well as visitors andmay provide an additional way of encouraging visitor appreciation of human connectedness with country.Interpretation material could also include the history and significance of the WTWHA listing, and what this hasmeant to Murray Falls in terms of management and visitation, protection and preservation.


Management Agency: Identity and Presence, Conservation and Protection

Identity & Presence A related presentation issue was level of visitor and other user awareness of themanagement agency (ies) responsible for management of the site. It is a concern that 73 percent of visitors did notappear to know who the management agency responsible for Murray Falls was (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 34-35).This is noteworthy given that this site attracts repeat visits from both local and domestic Australian visitors (Section1 pg 22-23), and has signage that specifically identifies Department of Natural Resources and State Forestry as themanagement agencies (Section 2 Site Inventory pg 60-61). This lack of awareness and/or confusion amongstvisitors has clear implications for the non reporting of critical incidents or damage, the provision of any type offeedback to managers, the public representation of agencies, and management performance monitoring.

Conservation & Protection Clearly visitors and other users appear to be impressed with the overallmanagement of the Murray Falls site as indicated by direct and indirect item responses relating to their appraisal ofthe condition and management of the natural and built environments (Section 1 Visitor Survey pgs 26-27; 32-33).In addition, their perceptions of the quality/status of biophysical and structural indicators of impact (Section 1Visitor Survey pg 38-39) were closely aligned with that of the researchers who had undertaken a comprehensiveassessment at the site at the same time (Section 2 Site Inventory, pg 56-57; Wilson 2002). While there were someidentifiable issues relating to the immediate natural environment such as weeds and other exotic plants, thesenevertheless were being addressed (Wilson 2002). In terms of the built environment, a continuous maintenanceprogram is well established.

Information Sources and Signage

Sources Presentation of the WTWHA and the decision to visit sites such as Murray Falls is closely linkedto and influenced by the way in which relevant information is accessed or sourced. Clearly the high local use of thissite and the many repeat visitors would explain the lack of use of information sources such as information centres orweb sites, etc and alternatively the high dependence on prior knowledge and/or word of mouth of this user group forinformation about Murray Falls (Section 1 Visitor Survey, pg 22-23). Given this, a carefully considered site-basedinformation dissemination program needs to be adopted to insure that this important and substantial user group ofthe WTWHA has access to all relevant and critical information.

Signage Another important presentation issue and management responsibility at sites such asMurray Falls is the provision of signage that clearly identifies rules and regulations, safety issues, and directions.Here at Murray Falls such signage is evident throughout (Section 2 Sign Inventory pg 60-65). In addition, visitorappraisal of various aspects of such signage was moderately high (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 30), and their overallcondition was found to be good (Section 2 Sign Inventory pg 60-65). Nevertheless, given the history of accidents atMurray Falls there remains a concern for those 25 visitors who did not easily locate the safety information.

Structural Features Layout and Design, Infrastructure and Facilities Layout and Design The current site layout and design at Murray Falls appears to be legible,functional and sensible (Section 2 Site Inventory pg 56-57), and appears to mitigate potential use conflicts anddistribute visitors over the site in a way which maximises choice and options. The historical reality of the site is thatit reflects what was best practice for a DNR day use and camping site, and its continued functioning as such a sitedoes not appear to be presenting any particular management problems under its current status as a WTWHA site. Itis arguable that Murray Falls does present a number of excellent opportunities for expanding recreation andexperience opportunities in its design and planning, and these would include increased local indigenous culture-based activities and experiences, an extended walking track, and modification of the site layout and interpretation tofoster a more immediate, rewarding, and memorable ‘encounter’ with the natural environment of the WTWHA site.This however would have to be very carefully considered given the current wish by visitors that the site remainsunchanged (Section 1 Visitor Comments pg 44).

Infrastructure and Facilities The infrastructure and facilities at Murray Falls appears to not only provide formost of the visitor needs but in addition are highly regarded as indicated by direct and indirect item responsesrelating to visitor appraisal of the adequacy, appeal, condition and management of the built environment (Section 1Visitor Survey pgs 32-33). All facilities present are well used (Section 1 Visitor Survey pgs 32-33). The firewoodsupply is particularly well appreciated but there appears to be a problem with wood size. The lack of kindling woodresults in the stripping of bark from nearby trees (Section 1 Behavioural Observations pg 52-53).


Opportunities

Recreational Activity-based Opportunities

Experiential Experience-based Opportunities

Educational Knowledge-based Opportunities

Opportunities in the context of protected area visitor sites have traditionally been seen to encompass aspectrum of activity-based recreation outcomes within which experience-based opportunities have beenembedded. Knowledge-based considerations have on the whole been absent. Here in this discussion thisconcept has been broadened to profile and highlight the importance of experience-based and knowledge-based opportunities in addition to activity-based opportunities at sites such as Murray Falls as separate butinterlinked entities. The term opportunities along with the subheadings thus allow for a more directlinking of management considerations to specific needs of visitors in terms of opportunities sought,available and utilised.

Recreational Activity-based

Activity-based The activity-based recreational opportunities available at Murray Falls are largely thoseof a ‘State Forestry Park’ day use and overnight camping site, and include swimming, picnicing, a short walkingtrack, and open grassed areas for other activities. The site does not cater for longer bush walks or wildernessadventure activities. The activities reported by respondents (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 32-33) indicate that the sitewas providing for and facilitating those activities which most visitors were seeking in a reasonable way.

Experiential Experience-based

Experience-based Experience-based opportunities at Murray Falls include nature watching,relaxation, and contemplation, as well as the opportunity of encountering, experiencing, and appreciating theWTWHA. Such opportunities were identified by visitors as being the most important in terms of their reasons forvisiting this site (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 24-25), and were significantly more important than activity-basedreasons. This strong endorsement of such opportunities and the general wish for no change in the site to occur(Section 1 Visitor Comments pg 44-45) supports the current management regime which clearly provides for suchopportunities. Even though experiences such as solitude, ‘wilderness’ experience, and wildlife encounters aresomewhat difficult to achieve at Murray Falls given its layout, extent, general character, and history and pattern ofuse, the site nevertheless appears to accommodate for current visitor needs. Other important experience-basedopportunities that continue to attract visitors to this site and reflect the strong local use association are placeconnection, meaning, and identification and a keenness to share this with others, particularly children. All suchexperience-based opportunities clearly highlight the importance of this site to the sense of well being of those whovisit.

Educational Knowledge-based Opportunities

Knowledge-based Knowledge-based opportunities at Murray Falls are numerous, diverse, andchallenging. Such opportunities are clearly linked to the natural and cultural attributes of the site, as well as thehuman use and need for such places. The immediate availability and easy accessibility of a variety of forest andlandscape types, the diversity of flora and fauna present, the indigenous cultural significance of the site and themanagement challenges associated with presenting, preserving and conserving such places provide endlessknowledge-based opportunities. Such opportunities are rarely acknowledged as an important contributor to thespectrum of site level opportunities in protected and WHAs despite its public good, educational, management andinternational significance.


Specific Problems and IssuesProblems Risk Activity and Regulation Violation

Issues Use/User Conflicts, Inappropriate Behaviour, Crowding and Overuse

Murray Falls does not appear to present any substantial problems or issues, other than those referred towith respect to presentation. It is a well-managed, well-maintained site which has a quite modest andmanageable volume of visitation and use (Section 3 Traffic Information pg 67), and a history and localculture of use which appears to have countered potential problems. Nevertheless there are a number ofproblems, issues and concerns that are related to visitor behaviour and use of the site that requireconsideration .

Problems Risk Activity and Regulation Violation

Risk Activity A principal behaviour management problem which exists relates to the 10.6percent of visitors engaging in risky activities while at the site (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 28-29, BehaviouralObservations, pg 52-53). Such activities appear to be quite intentional as the areas are well sign posted with veryclear warnings and safety information (Section 2 Sign Inventory pg 60-61). Given the potential seriousness of suchactivities and the ignoring of current signage by a number of visitors a different way of presenting such ‘risk’messages may need to be considered, for example, identifying type and number of accidents that have occurred,hence emphasing the seriousness of such risky behaviour.

Regulation Violation Regulation violations are also evident at Murray Falls including bringing ofdogs, swimming in prohibited areas such as the base of the falls, and walking along undesignated trails (Section 1Behavioural Observations pg 52-53, and Butler, 2002). Once again this type of behaviour is occurring despite anumber of signs clearly stating that all such activities are prohibited (Section 2 Sign Inventory, pg 60-65). As withrisk communication , such regulation violation may require a different message communication strategy, forexample, providing information on why such activity is prohibited and the consequences to self, others and theenvironment.

Issues Use/User Conflicts, Inappropriate Behaviour, Crowding and Overuse

Use/user conflict Overall, use/user conflict appears to be rare at this site as evident in the visitorassessment of the behaviour of others at the site (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 36-37). This is largely due to thelayout and design of the setting and the generous provision of facilities which allows visitors to establish their ownpersonal/family space (Section 2 Site Inventory pg 56-57). This is also due to the moderate levels of visitation andthe absence of organised tours at the site (Section 3 Traffic Information pg 67).

Inappropriate Behaviour Notwithstanding the relative absence of inappropriate visitor behaviour, it isnoteworthy that visitors expressed concerns over human-based threats, and in particular potential problems relatingto people behaviour at the site (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 40-41). Inappropriate visitor behaviours such aslittering, polluting, vandalism and deliberate destruction, were identified by visitors as the most important threats tothe well being of the environment at this site. While evidence of such behaviour was negligible, such concernsnevertheless demonstrate a general awareness of such threats to the environment and a connection to and caringabout the well being of the site.


Crowding and Overuse It is also noteworthy that visitors expressed concerns over potential problemsrelating to too many visitors and overcrowding (Section 1 Visitor Survey pg 40-41). This again is an interestingresponse given that Murray Falls receives relatively low numbers of visitors (Section 3 pg 67), and that at the timeof the survey respondents did not experience crowding (Section 1Visitor Survey pg 36-37). It neverthelesshighlights concerns visitors have regarding crowding and the importance of sites such as Murray Falls to remainpredominantly local use, low visitation sites. It is at just such low use, and more tranquil sites, that increases innumbers are particularly salient as this changed social context and setting can dramatically alter the character of thesite and ones experiences and opportunities while there.


References

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. & Reser, J. P (2000) Impacts of Visitation and Use: Psychosocial andBiophysical Windows on Visitation and Use in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area.Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management: Cairns (pp 285).

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. & Reser, J. (2002a) Measuring and Monitoring the Impacts of Visitation andUse in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: A Visitor Site Based Bioregional Perspective 2002.Rainforest Cooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Manidis Roberts Consultants (1993) Data Summary 1993 Wet Season Visitor Use Survey Wet TropicsWorld Heritage Area. Report to Wet Tropics Management Agency: Cairns.

Manidis Roberts Consultants (1994) Data Summary 1994 Visitor Use Survey Wet Tropics World HeritageArea. Report to Wet Tropics Management Agency: Cairns.

SitePlan (1993) Wet Tropics Visitor Facilities Audit. Report to Wet Tropics Management Agency: Cairns.

WTMA (1994 -1997) Traffic Counter Program Data Sets. Excel data files provided by the Wet TropicsManagement Authority: Cairns.

WTMA (1997) Protection through Partnerships: Policies for the Implementation of the Wet TropicsPlan. Wet Tropics Management Authority: Cairns.

WTMA (2001) Wet Tropics Walking Track Strategy. Wet Tropics Management Authority: Cairns.

Wilson, R. (2002) Wet Tropics World Heritage Area Visitor Monitoring System. Rainforest CooperativeResearch Centre: Cairns. In preparation.


WTWHA Reports 2001/2002

The reports produced by the Rainforest CRC Project 4.1 research team for the 2001 and 2002 WetTropics World Heritage Area site surveys and the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area community surveyare listed below.

WTWHA Site Level Data Reports:

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002a) Murray Falls: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002b) Davies Creek: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002c) Barron Falls: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002d) The Crater: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. Rainforest CooperativeResearch Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002e) Lake Barrine: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002f) Marrdja: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. Rainforest CooperativeResearch Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002g) Big Crystal: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002h) Goldsborough: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002i) Henrietta Creek: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. (2002j) Mossman Gorge: Site Level Data Report 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. & Reser, J.P. (2002a) Measuring and Monitoring the Impacts of Visitation andUse in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: A Site Based Bioregional Perspective. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.- Attachment: Research Procedural Manual: Measuring and Monitoring the Impacts ofVisitation and Use in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Rainforest Cooperative ResearchCentre: Cairns.

WTWHA Community Survey Reports:

Bentrupperbäumer, J. M. & Reser, J.P. (2002b) The Role of the Wet Tropics in the Life of theCommunity: A Wet Tropics World Heritage Area Community Survey 2001/2002. RainforestCooperative Research Centre: Cairns.- Attachment: Research Procedural Manual: Wet Tropics World Heritage Area CommunitySurvey 2001/2002. Rainforest Cooperative Research Centre: Cairns.

Murray Falls - Wet Tropics of Queensland · Terms of Reference Visitor Use Survey The following...

Documents

Transcript of Murray Falls - Wet Tropics of Queensland · Terms of Reference Visitor Use Survey The following...